Sorry bout that, wasn't sure :).
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
I am intolerant of intolerance and so can you
- Thread starter Morm
- Start date
- Status
Calling me a Child does not change the fact that im right. If you like being insensative to the families of the 13 000 000 then be my guest, but take it out of smogon, and go post it on the neo-nazi websites, they will be glad to here that people like you exist.
As for examples of bullshit, regarding the legality of the neo-nazis parade, or Nazi germany:
You should read the whole thread first.
No Im not. Seriously stop pretending you know more about Nazism and its history, when you clearly dont. Neo-Nazism are MODERN day nazis, that doesnt mean they want to kill me any less, it just means modern government and people are stopping them.
First of all, you are putting words in my mouth, or just fail to see my point (whether you are pretending for the sake of argument, or not). My POINT, is that they are promoting (not saying) the Ideals in the book Mien Kampf, which you obviously have never heard of.
Read this and stop insulting my, and everyone who reads this threads intelligence with your definition of nazism, its really frusterating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf
This is what the nazis and neo nazis supported. Those are their ideals. The books is considered their "Bible". The article on Nazism is an analysis of Nazism, meaning they believe it was a scheme because they needed a scapegoat, which is likely true but thats not the reason Nazis beleived they were out to kill Jews. They beleived it was because of the reasons stated in the book.
"I know you are but what am I?" Really?
I beleive someone already said these are irrelevant to the case of Nazism, they are both wrong, but much different.
Apparently some one on the internet thinks they know more then someone who has seen and researched things involving Nazism for his whole life. And also seems to think they are right. Newsflash: You are wrong, not me. Please stop trying to prove this and failing, its a waste of time. I am clearly more educated in this subject as you have demonstrated the lack of understanding for what Nazis did and what neo-nazis want to do (not that anyone can actually understand why they did such terrible things).
Well Im sure you would call it that, but luckily most people call it self defense. When someone threatens you have have a right to defend yourself, thats not even exlusive to Canada I dont think?
Firsty, I dont care about the Constitution of the United States of America, because this happened in Canada. And by the way you are arguing it, it seems to be fucked up.
Second, as I said before, there is a difference between sharing views on political standpoints, and sharing ideals of killing innocent people.
If you actually beleive that the Holocaust was a bad thing, you must look at the whole picture, it started with parades and rallies. Its to much to allow people to attempt to repeat history, which is why it is in fact illegal.
Wrong, it is illegal to threaten peoples lives, as i said before.
They werent out there to commit those things that day (thankfully), they are out there to try to convince the world that Nazism is correct, and that they are superior and that everyone else can be exterminated. That is a threat on my life as a Jew, right there.
Not to this argument, no. It is relevant in general, but it does not hold any weight here. You cant compare the two. And why is it NOW that you think mass killing is relevant, when you are dismissing the holocaust as a regular event that happened. It is uncomparable.
Do you want me to do this? You can use Google too, so i only got one example, and its sick enough to prove my point.
http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_...=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_the_News
This was one example out of thousands. They dont have the power at the moment to do the same mass killings as they did, but why give them the chance to get that power?
First of all i dont want to see anything about USAs amendments, what do they have to do with Canada?
You are defending their right to promote their ideology. You are those countries that stood by as millions of people were brutally slaughtered, just because they had the right to do it by their laws in Nazi Germany, happy?
Ok, thats quite easy. Neo-nazism worships Hitler, and his ideals made in the book Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf explains that the inferior races should be exterminated. Do you understand yet?
Thats fine, but its the truth and you know it.
Ideally they would, they dont have the power to do the same mass killing, but they DO kill and rape innocent minorities as i showed an example earlier.
I also said I didnt mind the bad names, I minded that these people exist.
What?
Canada, self defense is not only in Canada is it?
Correct.
Promoting Ideologies of mass murder is illegal, as it is a threat to the lives of these people.
Whew. That was a long one.....sigh.
Ah, I think everyone is renembering laws in our countries that promote free speech. However, I think everyone is forgetting that the Holocaust was considered "a crime against humanity" by the UN, and Germany was prosected for it. If this causes a second holocaust, it is "a crime against humanity" which is even higher than the US laws, they are world laws.
Also, what the Anti-Prejudice Group did is also something that has beend done before pretty much everywhere. It's called Civil Disobedience (please not that I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for importance). It's where the moral matters before the law. And that is what matters most.
Um HeYsUp, I'm not sure they worship the book, I think they just use it's idealology. And Hitler's idealology. But your point that the problems of Germany in the 1900s do nto matter today are highly relevant - there should be no reason for continual hate of Jews. Therefore, I just think they are using the idealology for their own purposes.
Also, what the Anti-Prejudice Group did is also something that has beend done before pretty much everywhere. It's called Civil Disobedience (please not that I bolded, italicized, and underlined it for importance). It's where the moral matters before the law. And that is what matters most.
Um HeYsUp, I'm not sure they worship the book, I think they just use it's idealology. And Hitler's idealology. But your point that the problems of Germany in the 1900s do nto matter today are highly relevant - there should be no reason for continual hate of Jews. Therefore, I just think they are using the idealology for their own purposes.
so because of the ideology of this certain group of people, you feel that they do not have a right to exist?
sounds pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I don't agree with Neo-Nazis. I don't think many people here agree with the Neo-Nazis. But the one thing I accept, is there right to express their own opinion. You might say that hate mongering is a "hate crime" but a hate crime requires that, an actual crime. Here it is merely one group of people expressing their opinion, no matter how stupid or ignorant it may be. Every group has a right to exist, to us we find it stupid, to them they find it true. Democrats think Republicans are stupid, the same the other way around. Fact is, half the world thinks the other half is stupid. Now while it may seem like I agree with Neo-Nazis (Which I do not), I find it rather ridiculous for some ambigious group or people to choose if it is stupid and worth censoring or not. Now if you look in the U.S, we draw lines of freedom of speech at another person's right to freedom of speech. I find this didn't violate that, it wasn't violent in any way, just crude and vulgar. Which if you haven't noticed has become popular culture, I mean how many times have you called someone a "fucker" or a "(BAN ME PLEASE)" or something along those lines? Those are sometimes just as hurtful as you "jew". So really absent a clear, present, and immediate danger as a result of the speech I cannot stop defending there rights.
Now if you look at history, you will find that the countries that censored material fall. Whether it was Napoleon's France, Mussilini's Italy, they all fall because censorship just causes more tension. In a way you should be glad for a protest and not for actual action. If they speak, then sometimes they are able to release there emotion so they don't actually commit any crime. So really, it is a way to reduce crime because, I rather have someone hate mongering then killing. Let the people speak, because when you restrict them you just cause oppresion. Which leads to suffering, and suffering leads to pain, and pain to rebellion. When you restrict freedom of speech, you open a gate for further censorship. A gate when one man or group can censor based on their opinion is not fair. Because that group controls, which is never ideal for a government. Rebellion is never encouraged, restricting it is just silly.
You may disagree but reacting with violence or censorship is..ridiculous and counterproductive.
I don't agree with Neo-Nazis. I don't think many people here agree with the Neo-Nazis. But the one thing I accept, is there right to express their own opinion. You might say that hate mongering is a "hate crime" but a hate crime requires that, an actual crime. Here it is merely one group of people expressing their opinion, no matter how stupid or ignorant it may be. Every group has a right to exist, to us we find it stupid, to them they find it true. Democrats think Republicans are stupid, the same the other way around. Fact is, half the world thinks the other half is stupid. Now while it may seem like I agree with Neo-Nazis (Which I do not), I find it rather ridiculous for some ambigious group or people to choose if it is stupid and worth censoring or not. Now if you look in the U.S, we draw lines of freedom of speech at another person's right to freedom of speech. I find this didn't violate that, it wasn't violent in any way, just crude and vulgar. Which if you haven't noticed has become popular culture, I mean how many times have you called someone a "fucker" or a "(BAN ME PLEASE)" or something along those lines? Those are sometimes just as hurtful as you "jew". So really absent a clear, present, and immediate danger as a result of the speech I cannot stop defending there rights.
Now if you look at history, you will find that the countries that censored material fall. Whether it was Napoleon's France, Mussilini's Italy, they all fall because censorship just causes more tension. In a way you should be glad for a protest and not for actual action. If they speak, then sometimes they are able to release there emotion so they don't actually commit any crime. So really, it is a way to reduce crime because, I rather have someone hate mongering then killing. Let the people speak, because when you restrict them you just cause oppresion. Which leads to suffering, and suffering leads to pain, and pain to rebellion. When you restrict freedom of speech, you open a gate for further censorship. A gate when one man or group can censor based on their opinion is not fair. Because that group controls, which is never ideal for a government. Rebellion is never encouraged, restricting it is just silly.
You may disagree but reacting with violence or censorship is..ridiculous and counterproductive.
RE anything to do with Christian monstrosities:
The Crusades: Really? You're going to condemn Christians today for holy wars that occurred before all of the following:
The Industrial Revolution
The Enlightenment
The Renaissance
The Gutenberg Printing Press
People who are 100 years old who remember stories from their 100 year old great-grandfather barely reaches back to The Industrial Revolution, nevermind anything else.
If you have to reach back to 1200 AD to find your beef with Christianity, you're grasping at straws.
As to Protestant vs. Catholic disputes, the vast majority of those conflicts were sourced in King Henry VII's decision to shun the Catholic Church for not allowing him to divorce, while maintaining the idea that only subjects who shared the king's religion should be free from abuse. Similar monarchies throughout Europe did nothing to allay the problem, either.
Those issues explain the principle behind the Establishment Clause. State-sponsored and funded religion has been historically bad. Where people get this wrong is when they forget about the Free Exercise clause, which says you can't be free from any individual's religious expression.
This brings us back to our original topic, free speech. I thought Outlaw explained it simply enough, but here's a more lengthy response:
The key word in the metaphor is "force." Poisonous snakes are colorful because the colors warn would-be predators to stay away. In the wild it's a defense mechanism. Snakes have those colors because they want to avoid as many fights as possible, and if their predators drove them to adapt to underground they'd drop the colors long before the venom.
It's an analogy so of course it doesn't match exactly, but the principle is similar. If you are a proud member of The Aryan Nation, La Raza, Black Panthers, or the KKK, I want you to be out, loud, and proud. Unlike a predator I mean you no harm, but I'd still like to avoid you and your kind if at all possible. If an organization is overt it means they engage in at least somewhat open recruiting, making them much easier to infiltrate than say an underground terrorist movement. Give the nutcase a soapbox; all the better I can be far away when he starts babbling insanity and the FBI can follow him home under the guise of friendship.
The Crusades: Really? You're going to condemn Christians today for holy wars that occurred before all of the following:
The Industrial Revolution
The Enlightenment
The Renaissance
The Gutenberg Printing Press
People who are 100 years old who remember stories from their 100 year old great-grandfather barely reaches back to The Industrial Revolution, nevermind anything else.
If you have to reach back to 1200 AD to find your beef with Christianity, you're grasping at straws.
As to Protestant vs. Catholic disputes, the vast majority of those conflicts were sourced in King Henry VII's decision to shun the Catholic Church for not allowing him to divorce, while maintaining the idea that only subjects who shared the king's religion should be free from abuse. Similar monarchies throughout Europe did nothing to allay the problem, either.
Those issues explain the principle behind the Establishment Clause. State-sponsored and funded religion has been historically bad. Where people get this wrong is when they forget about the Free Exercise clause, which says you can't be free from any individual's religious expression.
This brings us back to our original topic, free speech. I thought Outlaw explained it simply enough, but here's a more lengthy response:
Buckles said:
The key word in the metaphor is "force." Poisonous snakes are colorful because the colors warn would-be predators to stay away. In the wild it's a defense mechanism. Snakes have those colors because they want to avoid as many fights as possible, and if their predators drove them to adapt to underground they'd drop the colors long before the venom.
It's an analogy so of course it doesn't match exactly, but the principle is similar. If you are a proud member of The Aryan Nation, La Raza, Black Panthers, or the KKK, I want you to be out, loud, and proud. Unlike a predator I mean you no harm, but I'd still like to avoid you and your kind if at all possible. If an organization is overt it means they engage in at least somewhat open recruiting, making them much easier to infiltrate than say an underground terrorist movement. Give the nutcase a soapbox; all the better I can be far away when he starts babbling insanity and the FBI can follow him home under the guise of friendship.
So its ok to promote Nazi idealism because its White Supremacy Day?
Next why dont they make a violence day, where we can promote violence because it has its own day!
On a more serious note, that is a weak argument at best, you can put a title on anything to sugarcoat it, but Nazism is Nazism.
Thank you for your at least partial-agreement and evidence, seriously thank you, I forgot to even bring that up.
However, I did not say they worshipped the book, they worshipped their Furor (Leader, almost god) who was Hitler, who wrote the book which is their "Bible". The principals of the book are still relevant today, the reasons for him writing the Book are not. Let me explain, the reason for him blaming Jews, was because he thought the German people wanted a scapegoat, and because there were alot of Jewish people that had better jobs then them. What Hitler did in Mein Kampf was lie about Jews trying to take over the world and that they are "rats", and then pointed out the fact that Jewish people had better jobs then them. Hitler unfortunately was a very smart man politically, because this worked to near perfection by dehumanizing Jews, and simply "forcing" people to hate them. These concepts remain relevant. For example the fact that it says "Exterminate the Jewish Rats" is still relevant today.
No, because a certain people breaking the Law, and attempting to infringe upon peoples human rights, including the right to live. I feel its SAD that this heartless people (if you can call them people) exist, not that they dont have a right to.
They DONT have a right to promote their hatred and goal of exterminating all other races. They dont have that right morally or legally.
EDIT:
@ Deck Knight, thank you for arguing what I was to lazy and unknowledgable about to do (about the Christianity thing). Its appreciated :D.
@ BalancedPower, while you have somewhat of a point (unlike my other opposition), if you call someone a (BAN ME PLEASE), that is abuse. Calling someone a fucker is not even insulting in comparison to these, it has nothing to do with someones ethnicity or sexual orientation. The neo-nazis are trying to convince the world to murder millions upon millions of People. That is a hate crime, which is the prime argument. Their promotion of their murderous and cruel ideals is illegal for the reason that its intent is to commit a *Crime Against Humanity*, not because of what they say. I went into depth why what that *say* matters not nearly as much as what they do. Nor should i have to be thankful that I was only told that I am worthless and deserve to die as opposed to someone actually Killing me. The censorship is not the issue at hand, its the fact that Nazi ideals are, and would be illegal if they happened. Censorship doesnt matter except if it is censoring the whole fact that they are parading. Parading leads to worse things, thats proven in history.
You can always find use for those sort of quotes, in the most interesting of situations. ;)
Yes we all have a right to an opinon. But do we go out hurting others feelings just because it is our opinon. No. We don't. It's an unspoken law of society that you keep those things to your self. If you have someone at school who likes you, but in reality, you think she is ugly, do you say "I hate you, go away, I never want to see your ugly mug again." No. You don't. Whether or not you like it, you are subject to these precreated rules of society. No, mongering is not a hate crime. However, showing off your superiority while promoting the idea that a race is trash - that is a hate crime.
Erm... I don't cuss so I cannot really relate to the one part, so yeah. I am against calling people that... it is really, really, unnecessary. And I do have the right to not having someone who cuses around me, just as I have the right to clean air (which opposes the right of smoking). There are plenty of rights out there, spoken, or not spoken, that contradict each other. You have to find out where they balance, and above all, HOW IT EFFECTS OTHERS.
About censored material, I'm sure you all renember reading Farenheit 451. Now look at the content of the books that were centered. They gave new ideas to people. They made people think in a postive manner. Now if you renember, something that was not censored were the "three-dimensional sex magazines". The public was not smart enough to stay away from these sort of things. They influenced people in a negative way. (we are talking according to our views as a democratic society) Now, would you not say it would be advantageous to censor those things that influence people in a negative way? Because that is where censorship is ok. When it influences in the positive. Now one may argue that the censorship in F451 was positive since it made people happy. I tell you otherwise. They were "brainwashed" happy. They did not know what happy was. They thought they were happy.
If people need to speak about emotions such as that, there are organizations for that sole purpose only. They will take people in for free, to give them help with their emotions. We don't need people parading around the street promoting hate against a certain creed when there is this alternative.
I'll come back to censorship one more time. How would you feel if all the people in the next generation were taught that murder was bad. They were censored from pieces that say that murder is good. Would that be negative? No. Censorship can be correct, and create a better situation if applied right.
So it's this: If a censor provides for the better of all, and actually does so in practice, and only for that purpose, it is a good censor. Else, it is not.
Also note, I did not break my quote: It is a bad idea to censor words, you can only censor ideas, and even then it has to meet that requirement I just suggested. You may view this as having no support yet.... because "One single voice makes a deafening sound."
Thanks for replying though, I enjoyed thinking up my response.
@HeYsUp No Problem supporitng. I wasn't quite sure what their policies were.
No. I'm saying they were not promoting any violence against others during the parade; they were just saying how white people are superior. Had they actually been promoting violence (and the article did not say anything about it so I'm under the assumption that they made no threats), your points would be valid.
however, they did not break the law in any way.
they were on the righteous side. they did not ever once attempt to infringe upon ithers rights, they were expresing their views in an entirely legal way. if you can show me evidence that they were calling out ethnicities left and right, saying they should be killed, then i will agree that they had no right. however, given the past nature of their protests one can assume that in this protest as well, they were celebrating their pride as a white human being, which is perfectly legal in every way.
and also, we have been throwing around the term neo nazi liberally in this topic, and i would just like to point out that
so i think we should avoid calling them something that they actively avoid calling themselves.
Ok, so they are wrong morally. They break the unspoken laws of society, which are much more strict. They are the most unfair laws that have existed since humanity began, because they emphasize outcasting the different. I have had struggles with these laws myself. However, it comes down to the fact that these laws hardly change, and even so, only over many years, so it takes a long push in order to break them.
Either way, I don't know about you, but I have a consciousness that tells me that hating for their reason is very wrong. I trust that consciousness.
You said "if they are calling out ethnicities left and right" but renember, by saying "whites are supreme" they are essentially saying that. Should they not figure out a better way to abuse their anger than on others?
All in all, it does not really matter to me whether it was legal or not. I just know that it went against a deep value of mine - respect others, and only judge them for their true state. No, this is deeper than words, or how they act, this is their true state. For example you don't judge someone for a wierd way of speaking or for not being able to connect the dots between the ideas you string in sentences. You judge them by their derivative and kindness.
National Socialist was a miscoined term by Hitler. It essentially was nationalist, he just threw in socialist to make it sound good to certain people. So Nazi will be what I refer to them as, because that's where they derive their political ideas from.
White Supremacy does not mean celebrating being white. It means showing off yourself as higher than non-white races. I'm white, and I find no need to go celebrate my race, I would rather spend time celbrating birthdays, easter, christmas, etc that matter more about people on the inside.
HeYsUp said:
I do try. Sometimes it works...
It wasn't addressed to me so I may lose my props, but basically I oppose the concept of a "hate crime" because by definition it makes a motivation a criminal offense.
The act of saying outrageous and harmful things should either be a crime or not. Whether its The Aryan Nation or a satirical "Hatorade Brigade" should be irrelevant. One group's motivation is true hatred, the others is parody, but the same words are said. I stand firmly on the side that mere rhetoric should not be a crime. Espousing hatred is like marking yourself with a red flag, the attention from speaking it is it's own reward.
It's also never applied equally. If a black gang vandalizes a latino gang member's house with ethic insults solely because they hate latinos, no one will entertain the idea it was a hate crime (until after it's proven a white guy didn't do it, naturally). Plenty of people have nothing but ignorant criticism and even hatred for straight white Christian males, but I doubt any of them will be forced to stand trial over it even if their absurd "hate crimes" law passes.
Peaceful protest, no matter how offensive the subject matter, is a legitimate channel for expressing grievance. That's why you need to get a permit for any parade (from this garbage to standard-fare Christmas parades), because a police detail is required to make sure some moron (either in the parade or outside it) doesn't flip out and start an incident.
yeah, im not saying that they are right on a moral sense, im saying that legally, they did nothing wrong.
i too have a conscience and it tells me the same thing, but reading this law book next to me tells me that the Aryan Guard was on the side of the law, and no court will convict someone who is morally wrong but legally protected. i am not here to argue morals, as i agree with the protesters morally, but legally, the Aryan guard had a right to parade there, and that right was infringed upon by the anti racist protesters.
and i said that if they were calling out ethnicities and saying that they should be exterminated,
sorry for the weird wording.
also, national socialist was not a term coined by hitler, merely popularized by hitler.
again, no where in the Aryan Guard's parade did the term white supremacy come up, afaik. the name of the parade was white pride world day, which should offend no one unless they take offense to someone having pride in their own race.
even on the aryan guard website, they do not refer to themselves as white supremacists, but as white activists, so whenever they are being called white supremacist, that is someone else using that term agianst them.
Mmm... If a person is meaning to hurt the feelings of another for something they have no control over, despite tabula rasa, I consider that "illegal" in the sense of society laws. I would have a major talk with that person, trying to make him think sense.
Of course peaceful protest is ok. What is not ok is demonstrating hate for others, or showing pride and superiority, because that is "baiting". So by definition, since it is a "white superiority march" it is already breaking the law by "baiting".
@Vanguard The question I have is, was it both days at once? Also, the article does not mention who started the fight.
EDIT: Ooh... just came across something intersting
"CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Unlawful assembly
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."
Do they meet the requirements?
Of course peaceful protest is ok. What is not ok is demonstrating hate for others, or showing pride and superiority, because that is "baiting". So by definition, since it is a "white superiority march" it is already breaking the law by "baiting".
@Vanguard The question I have is, was it both days at once? Also, the article does not mention who started the fight.
EDIT: Ooh... just came across something intersting
"CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Unlawful assembly
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."
Do they meet the requirements?
The Canadian Charter statute about "baiting" (I believe its framed as "causing a reasonable person to disturb the peace tumultuously") is absurd.
You should not be silenced based on the possibility someone else may react with violent actions based on your words. Anarchists are a violent lot (Apparently Anti-Racism Action and the communist International ANSWER are similar groups) who don't respond peaceably to anything that isn't communist/anarchist/whatever it is they support.
Such a clause merely leads to more intimidation. After all, if all you need to silence someone's view is that a "reasonable person" (as defined by some government panel or Star Chamber, er, "Human Rights Commission,") responds with spontaneous violence, you need only provide ample evidence of responsorial violence.
Few Problems
Anarchist are not violent. You took AP Euro, right? It' like this:
Radial - Liberal - Moderate - Conservative - Reactionary
Anarchist fit between Liberal and Radical.
The Democratic Party fits under Liberal.
Communish fits under Radical (though in Russia, it would be now considered Conservative)
In all rights, Communist should be more prone to violence than Anarchists.
Look at my preveious post under (b). That is the problem.
No, not the possiblity, what matters is that it actually happened. And it is currently undetermined who started it either (according to the article).
Deck Knight, it is to the point where it does not matter what the law says, sometimes you have to step in and say something is wrong. Sure, it may not be incorporated into the law, but it is your job as a good citizen to tell them how mistaken they are. I don't agree with the violence, but both sides commited it. So no, it will not be decided by chamber, but by the good of the common people that live in this world.
Uh, have to go to bed, I'll respond tomorrow mornign or afternoon.
Anarchist are not violent. You took AP Euro, right? It' like this:
Radial - Liberal - Moderate - Conservative - Reactionary
Anarchist fit between Liberal and Radical.
The Democratic Party fits under Liberal.
Communish fits under Radical (though in Russia, it would be now considered Conservative)
In all rights, Communist should be more prone to violence than Anarchists.
Look at my preveious post under (b). That is the problem.
No, not the possiblity, what matters is that it actually happened. And it is currently undetermined who started it either (according to the article).
Deck Knight, it is to the point where it does not matter what the law says, sometimes you have to step in and say something is wrong. Sure, it may not be incorporated into the law, but it is your job as a good citizen to tell them how mistaken they are. I don't agree with the violence, but both sides commited it. So no, it will not be decided by chamber, but by the good of the common people that live in this world.
Uh, have to go to bed, I'll respond tomorrow mornign or afternoon.
i believe it was simultaneous.
and the article is quite lacking in details as to who threw the first punch, so to speak, which is quite important to the whole issue.
also, agreeing with DK on this whole baiting issue, because for one, they need to define reasonable persons. not only is reasonable extremely vague, but when does it become unlawful? when 1 person reacts tumultuosly? 2 people? 10, 100, 1000 people? it is suppressing someones thoughts because someone might react in an adverse way? its punishing someone for another pesons actions.
also, whats keeping someone who finds the assembly offensive from simply leaving the vicinity? its not like they are being forced to view the demonstration.
Edit:
actually, after rereading the criminal code, i believe that it was drafted with riots and people attempting to incite riots in mind. it is my understanding that i outlaws anyone from trying to start riots.
It was Civil Disobedience up until the protesters started throwing things at the Neo-Nazi paraders.
Yes, I know your twelve-year course disagrees with me on this, but the Neo-Nazi movement isn't just Hitler's ideology in the modern day-- yes, it's an ethnic-nationalist view, but it's not necessarily violent. Sure, there are sections of the group that promote [and, as you have shown, follow through on] the sorts of violence these beliefs might inspire, but not all of them take it to that extent.
Hateful, ignorant, and bigoted as the Aryan Guard is, they followed legal procedures for their display and [from what I've gathered] never explicitly supported such violent actions, so there's no justification in assaulting them, and the notion that they were implicitly supporting the extermination of non-Aryans isn't grounds enough to silence them.
Tell them their ignorance, racism, and xenophobia is full of shit; attacking them isn't necessary to prove that point.
Ha, I'm playing a piece in orchestra called Vangaurd Overture.
First, celebrating yourself is a very vain thing to do, and for them to be Christians, they should know that the bible says God has a hatred of pride. In fact, Lucifer was kicked out of Heaven because of his own pride.
Second, I think the Gaurd is abusing their rights. Maybe they aren't standing for the death of other minorities. But they are still promoting the hatred of other groups. I think the Chinese would have something to say about their "majority" position.
Ugh. . . Third. . . That link you gave had a description you know. They were protesting at an anti-racism rally. I don't see how that is only supporting white pride.
Edit: Looked at Vangaurd's link
Holy crap....I completely agree.
Also, Heysup, DM is right. Just because nazis have done terrible things in the past, doesnt mean that everything modern nazis do is equivalent. The people who were protesting were not doing anything wrong or illegal, and they were assaulted. You are trying to re-demonize the word nazi and use that as a defense to assault them. Well, that really doesn't make you any better than them. Nobody is questioning how much you know, they are questioning how it is relevant. The holocaust is not directly relevant to this incident of assault. I am sorry that your ancestors may have been a victim of the holocaust, as I am sorry for everyone else who was involved...but being Jewish and reading the wikipedia page on the holocaust does not make it right to assault people, even if they are modern nazis, end of story. The key word is "modern". Nobody in that parade had anything to do with the holocaust, yet for some reason you are acting like Hitler himself was marching.
VIII's...
Majority of anarchists are pacifist; it's really only Antifa et al that do the whole physical resistance of Nazis thing.
Anarchists also do have a tendency to set things on fire, but you weren't talking about violence against things.
"CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA
Unlawful assembly
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."
Seriously, that pwnd the entire arguement.
Based on that alone, the neo-nazis shouldnt have been parading at all. While the anti-racists didn't have a right to attack them, it may have helped to discourage similar idiocy in the future. However it would have been better left to the cops, as what the neo-nazis were doing was INDEED ILLEGAL based on that law.
Unlawful assembly
63. (1) An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more persons who, with intent to carry out any common purpose, assemble in such a manner or so conduct themselves when they are assembled as to cause persons in the neighbourhood of the assembly to fear, on reasonable grounds, that they
(a) will disturb the peace tumultuously; or
(b) will by that assembly needlessly and without reasonable cause provoke other persons to disturb the peace tumultuously."
Seriously, that pwnd the entire arguement.
Based on that alone, the neo-nazis shouldnt have been parading at all. While the anti-racists didn't have a right to attack them, it may have helped to discourage similar idiocy in the future. However it would have been better left to the cops, as what the neo-nazis were doing was INDEED ILLEGAL based on that law.
- Status