What price must we pay to hold a peaceful protest?

[NorseThing]

Will the so-called "Antifa apocalypse" come with a bang or a whimper?




A series of anti-government, leftist rallies set to descend on major cities nationwide Saturday is drawing the attention of local officials, who, like the organizers themselves, fear the events could be hijacked by violent masked anarchists.
The left-wing "Refuse Fascism" group is using Nov. 4 as its kickoff for demonstrations in nearly two dozen U.S. cities, protests it says will continue "day after day and night after night ─ not stopping ─ until our DEMAND is met."


The "DEMAND" is the removal of President Trump and Vice President Pence.
The gatherings are being described as a kind of "Antifa apocalypse" on right-wing media, according to The Washington Post. Several sites are expressing particular alarm about the loosely-defined left-leaning group, which preaches a version of ferocious anti-government chaos that often uses "domestic terrorist violence," according to a recent FBI report.

Among the 20 cities where rallies are set to occur are Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle.


The anarchist group, whose name comes from term "anti-fascist," made news earlier this week for allegedly harassing a female reporter at Columbia University and for seven arrests at California State University, Fullerton, amid reports of head-punching and pepper-spraying.
“You cannot try to ‘wait things out’,” a Refuse Fascism call to action reads. “Those who lived through Nazi Germany and sat on the sidelines, looking on as Hitler demonized, criminalized, and eventually rounded up one group after another, became shameful collaborators with monstrous crimes.”
Tapping into movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Women’s March, Refuse Fascism said it hopes to protest non-stop, 24/7 “until this regime is driven from power.”
The organization is engaged with a broad coalition of groups, including the Revolutionary Communist Party — but says they are committed to a nonviolence stance.
Zee told The Washington Post his organization does “uphold the legal right to self-defense,” but that they "don’t initiate violence" and they "oppose violence."
Previous instances of antifa violence have, however, been justified as "self-defense."
"Fascism cannot be defeated by speech," Darmouth Prof. Mark Bray said in August.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/03...-saturday.html

So will these protestors be a part of a peaceful protest? Will the police silence those who oppose or will the police let a counter protest drown out this series of protests. I can only hope the police do not take sides and that these protests are allowed. Time will tell. We do not really have long to wait though.

[swabian]

Presumably this group had a permit to carry out their demonstration. That means a street/park is theirs to use in the manner they specified in their application for a permit. They exclusively had the right to use a public space for this demonstration. Anyone else using the same space is infringing on the groups permit. Interrupting the demonstration is something akin to trespassing/being a public nuisance.

This

/thread

As if anyone cared for leftards rambling and wailing about racism. Assault is assault, period - even if commited only by pampered leftard kids without a life or future. Someone needs to hammer the principle of constitutionality in their empty heads as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing nazism made illegal... as long as islamism and communism are made illegal too. Any organisation which legitimises illegal violence should be classed as a terrorist organisation. Any organisation which seeks to overthrow the democratic government system should be illegal. political use of undemocratic symbols like swastika and hammer and sickle should be illegal too.

Germany has a pretty hard stance on those things, but parties can only be forbidden if they actively go against the constitutional order. They can't be made illegal simply because of radical stances. For example: the goal to change the constitution is perfectly legal as long as the methods to achieve said goal are legal.

just because you're for democracy doesn't mean you have to be a pussy about it. hard stance against antidemocratic forces does not make you an authoritarian.

This is a mild to moderate degree of authoritarianism, of course. I don't see a big problem with that, though (in principle).

[Elfdude]

I'm sorry but the permit to use public spaces to assemble does not bar others from use. In virtually every case counter-protesters also had a permit and by law they could not be denied. There is no such thing as protected right to be heard, only sanctioned right to use public lands which both groups can call upon simultaneously.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...unter-protest/

The spin amongst rightards to try and convince us that a group which is a factor of 10 less violent and less murderous than the alt-right is the real issue in the US is hilarious.

[Infidel144]

In the previous thread on Charlottesville it was, as I recall, found that the counter protesters had a permit, for a different area.

[swabian]

I'm sorry but the permit to use public spaces to assemble does not bar others from use. In virtually every case counter-protesters also had a permit and by law they could not be denied. There is no such thing as protected right to be heard, only sanctioned right to use public lands which both groups can call upon simultaneously.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...unter-protest/

The spin amongst rightards to try and convince us that a group which is a factor of 10 less violent and less murderous than the alt-right is the real issue in the US is hilarious.

The topic isn't about right-wing vs left-wing terrorism, idk why you're pulling that out of your arse now.

If a demonstration is announced and legal, you can demonstrate and expect to be protected by police. If you physically assault demonstrators, you commit illegal acts of violence. Easy peasy, eh.

[Elfdude]

Well Charlottesville is kind of a different situation all together. Neither group required any permit whatsoever, the Unite the Right had no permit either it was a Judicial ruling and in both cases none was required by law. It should be noted that the University of Virginia has jurisdiction and again no permit of any sort was required by any body.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/f...r_protests.pdf

[swabian]

I don't know the US law, but even if no permit is required, violent counter-demonstrations are hardly justifiable, especially if it's about silly but harmless slogans like "white lives matter" (where is the agressive racism in that?). If demonstrations are sabotaged by loud noises, then the problematic is different again, but eventually, people should have the lawful ability to demonstrate and express their opinions, no matter how silly they are, provided there is no obvious hate speech included. It's the polices responsibility to dissolve demonstrations if they are only used as a platform for hate speech, not the responsibility of counter-demonstrants.

[Elfdude]

There was no violent counter demonstration. The actuality of it was a few relatively minor scuffles, with the exception of an idiot who used a car to enforce his justice coming from the predictable side it did it's of little surprise. The right showed up with paramilitary heavily armed groups which included "shieldmen" who orchestrated shield walls for the right. They were prepared for a fight, if there was a violent counter demonstration to any real degree there would have been many more injuries and deaths between them. The right is far more violent and far more murderous than the violent counter-demonstrations you're trying to refer to.

[Love Mountain]

White Lives Matter is a racist group. All Nationalism disgusts me. The concept of "nationhood" is entirely man-made and while it has relevance, it's completely outdated and replaced by the idea of "culture", which is superior to nationalism in all possible ways. Black Lives Matter is pointing out how our justice system mistreats Blacks, but only in relation to culture. That despite being American they are being punished for having black skin. White Lives Matter does the exact opposite. They specifically emphasize the promotion of White Americans. Sorry, but I don't really give a what color your skin is. What's important are cultural values and American citizenship or the desire to be American. One group emphasizes that Americans need to be equal in rights, the other emphasizes that the White Race takes precedence. Not to mention the garbage about homosexuality and how it threatens the "nation". There is no such thing as an American "nation" and the sooner these white people understand that, the better.

Here's a great idea, someone should start a business selling CSA paraphernalia and donate all profits to a charity that targets poor Black households.

[swabian]

Why can't immigrants fathom the concept of "homeland". There is no delusion of superiority behind it, it's just our freaking home.

[chilon]

This

/thread

No.

I realize in the era of Trump quaint things like facts and evidence are outdated and it's the new in thing to just throw out venomous personal insults but I am old school.

You can't make these assertions without backing them up with evidence. And until you actually prove with evidence that the white supremacists had an exclusive permit and the counter protesters did not you are full of e

Back up your claims with evidence not 8 year old insults ffs

[swabian]

Do you feel the venom? Good. Good.

Wtf are you talking about my dear?

[Genghis Skahn]

Personally, I don't like authoritarians, which includes both Nazis and Marxists, so I fully understand finding these LARPers and the ideas they champion intolerable. However, if you allow marxists/anti-fascists to protest in large numbers(sometimes causing thousands of dollars in damage, see Berkeley for eg.), then it follows that you must let extremists on the opposite end of the political spectrum the right to protest as well(assuming it is peaceful). Both right-wing fascism(eg. Nazism) and left-wing fascism(eg. Soviet Fascism) have resulted in the destruction of millions of innocent lives; to demonize one group and apologize for another is a crime against every former gulag and concentration camp detainee. They are both pathological ideologies, and opposite sides of the same coin. And if you're to make the argument that "the far right is worse/has caused more harm throughout history", then be prepared to walk on shaky ground. The cultural revolution in China alone killed more people than the Nazis could have ever hoped to accomplish--but hey! At least they didn't want an ethnostate...

I must say, I am absolutely shocked by mongrel's totalitarian ideas and perceived, at least to my eyes, absolute hatred of freedom of expression. Let's make something clear: freedom of expression has absolutely NOTHING to do with popular speech. Popular speech is already intrinsically protected via it's popularity among the public; if I wanted to scream "Donald Trump is a white supremacist who rigged the election" in the town square, it is unlikely that I would find myself surrounded by an angry mob. Indeed, it's more likely that I will be lauded for such speech. Freedom of expression has everything to do with unpopular speech. For example, when James Damore released the Google Memo, wherein he stated that there were intrinsic biological/psychological differences between men and women, he was fired from his job for expressing this opinion. Despite four scientists, plus renowned U of T psychologist Jordan B. Peterson, claiming that what he stated was largely in line with the current literature, he was fired from his job for his "sexist" viewpoints. James Damore is a perfect example of someone who's speech needed to be protected by 1st Amendment, and how did Google reward him for exercising this right? Oh right, they fired him. He was even called Alt-right(or at the very least, claimed to be a new Alt-right hero), despite making it abundantly clear that he was a classical liberal(and if you read the google memo, you'll know he sounds just like a classical liberal or centrist ought to have sounded).

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, then we don't believe in it at all"--Noam Chomsky(clearly he must be a right-wing racist for espousing this belief! Oh wait...He's known for being famously left-leaning).

I don't like right-wing authoritarians and I also don't like left-wing authoritarians, but in a free society where freedom of expression/speech exists, we are required by law to respect their right to speak, even if you despise them. The only exception I could possibly be bothered to accept regarding this freedom of expression is regarding genocidal speech or speech which invokes direct incitements to violence. So long as these protesters behave peacefully, they have the right to espouse their views in accordance with the 1st Amendment. Disagree with said views? Excellent my good man, prepare to debate them--it's not particularly difficult to defeat the oft murderous ideas of the far-left and far-right in this way. Commit violence against them? Well, violence is something we oft do when we stop trying to resolve things via debate, just by the way--and it's a beloved tactic of authoritarians the world over.

I know the obvious counter to this traditional argument regarding free speech: "free speech should not include hate speech"...All well and good, but who the hell defines hate(as noted upthread, there is no set definition of 'extremism' and if there is, it wasn't provided by mongrel who argued for it)? Was the Google Memo hateful? If I refuse to acknowledge this scholar as a trans-hippo, and don't use their preferred pronoun, am I being hateful? If I say that atheists and homosexuals/bisexuals/transexuals get the death penalty in many Islamic majority countries(full disclosure, I'm an atheist-agnostic, so I'm included in the list of targets), am I being Islamophobic? If I say that a huge portion of third-wave feminism is prejudicial against men and that the state of feminist scholarship is extremely poor, flawed or corrupt, am I being a sexist(for more on this topic, check the twitter account "New Real Peer Review")? If I state that I believe that some ethnic and racial differences exist between genetically distinct populations(even while acknowledging that differences within groups are greater than between them; do note the central claim made by racists is that there are more differences between groups than within them) am I being a racist? You tell me. Genocidal speech and incitements to violence are a bit of a different ball game, since it is much easier to fully classify such speech as hateful or destructive.

I hate marxists and nazis, but in many free societies we all have: freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right to a peaceful protest. Hence, these "White Lives Matter" guys should be allowed to peacefully protest, even if you despise them(and for the record, I dislike them as well). And don't be surprised if their ideas gain more traction due to state censorship. Any psychologist can tell you right off the bat that suppression of thought or feeling does NOT lead to the eradication of such feelings/thoughts. If anything, suppression/repression results in these views gaining strength and becoming more corrupted as they become forced underground.

"Everyone carries a shadow, and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is."--Carl Jung. In other words: censoring these "White Lives Matter" guys will likely strengthen their message(if we are to view them as the "shadow" of the right, that would be ignoring or suppressing the shadow). Upthread someone mentioned how they were "waiting to be censored" so that they would gain more media attention. Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about. If you really want these ideas to be defeated, don't censor them--it just gives the possessors of these ideas victim-bucks and a lot more media attention IMO.

And before you all go screaming alt-right at me...I'm a classical liberal or centrist, and my voting history is left-leaning as well(indeed, at the local level I even have a bit of a vendetta against our conservative party). So chew on that.

All Nationalism disgusts me.

I'm guessing you're not a fan of a whole host of independence movements then. Be it Catalonia, Kurdistan, or the establishment of modern Ireland or India, national and ethnic identity plays or has played a huge role in these movements--and more than once it resulted in an oppressed people liberating themselves from their oppressors(see India and Ireland). But hey! All nationalism is purely bad because you say so. Now, extreme forms of nationalism surely can and have been destructive in the past(anything taken to the extreme can be destructive, including drinking too much water, despite it's life-giving properties), but without some measure of national pride or identity(or tribalism), good ing luck keeping a state/tribe/people together. Nationalism may almost be viewed as an evolved form of human tribalism, and if you think tribalism is going away any time soon, you're in for a rude awakening--Donald Trump's election and Brexit have thoroughly proved that it still exists(and will likely always exist IMO--denying it's existence will likely cause it to grow in strength like a person's psychological "shadow"...Which is exactly what happened with Brexit and Trump IMO.). You can tout how the idea of "culture" has replaced nationalism entirely, but "culture" and human society is not a blank slate--they are constructs which are founded upon human tribalism(which has biological roots). It is not easy(and maybe even impossible) to excise tribalism(which is related to nationalism) from "culture".

The concept of "nationhood" is entirely man-made and while it has relevance, it's completely outdated and replaced by the idea of "culture", which is superior to nationalism in all possible ways

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkADiJCYS2k

[the_mango55]

The topic isn't about right-wing vs left-wing terrorism, idk why you're pulling that out of your arse now.

If a demonstration is announced and legal, you can demonstrate and expect to be protected by police. If you physically assault demonstrators, you commit illegal acts of violence. Easy peasy, eh.

Why are you talking about violence when the right wing is complaining about playing music too loud?

[chilon]

Do you feel the venom? Good. Good.

Wtf are you talking about my dear?

Do you not remember your own posts? Here is what you replied to:

Presumably this group had a permit to carry out their demonstration. That means a street/park is theirs to use in the manner they specified in their application for a permit.

with

This
/Thread

So again I repeat where is your evidence that the white supremacists had an exclusive permit while the counter protesters did not?

Until you provide that proof you are full of ****


Also, I am not your "dear". What a weird thing to say.

[swabian]

Full of you mean?

[chilon]

Full of you mean?

So no evidence supporting your claim that the white supremacists had a permit while the counter protesters did not.

[swabian]

When and where did i say that?

[chilon]

Read post 115 where I explained it. Not responding to your obvious trolling, name calling and avoiding the issue anymore

[swabian]

You remember what i said back then? How interesting. if you were able to dig that out, you might just as well quote it.