By the the threat of violence, what good will that do in the long run? Sounds like the nazis weren't the only ones looking for a fight.
Personally I'd prefer any group threatening violence against the people of this city were banned from coming here in the first place but as that didn't happen then yes I am more than happy for people to fight their corner in the wake of the open and public threats made. In fairness TT the nazi's in that group are quick to discuss the "tools they take on a job/march" yet most in opposition (by all accounts) were not attending with any intentions towards violence. For me (when faced with this choice) the violence of the banana is preferable to the violence of the knives these divvies openly boast about carrying on their marches or worse the violence of the gas chamber If it takes hurling a bit of fruit then so be it....you can keep comparing the two as being as bad as each other but it's a misnomer to suggest these were violent anti-fascists preventing a peaceful march occuring. That's simply not true. These were violent fascists spoiling for a fight and running away when they got some groceries lashed at them. Sound in my book ...and as I said before...no fascists = no need for anti-fascists
But a bunch of ignoramus Nazis arnt disrupting order (as long as march and chant is all they do) and they're not disrupting health or security. The reason people want to quiet them is because they're scum. If they were breaking other laws, fine, stop them. If they're just assembling to spread a non-agreeable message they should have that right.
You will obviously never change your standpoint and believe what you want, I believe anti protests do more harm to the cause than good and so we will just have to agree to disagree. Lets both just hope that if the group do decide to come back that nobody innocent gets hurt in the ensuing riot.
You're right, I will always believe that while there are people who adhere to the values of fascism that the world needs people willing to stand up to them. If that means fighting fire with fire then so be it. I'd prefer things never, ever reached the point of violence but threaten innocent people with carnage and chaos and I say they have a right to defend themselves
a) They're not allowed to preach bombing centres or attacking soldiers, it's against the law. b) What rights for *****philes? Once again anything that advocates breaking the law like underage sex, is against the law. And you can't march for the right to gas jews, disabled children, burn black people or gay people, or kill white women They're all illegal activities. And yeh I'm all for freedom of speech
Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly treble Freedom of speech already has limits and rightly so in the most extreme cases The argument that we can say what we like doesn't hold water does it. Now I'd just like to clarify exactly what you lot think being a neo-nazi stands for if not the destruction of the Jews and the disabled, the forced repatriation of ethnic minorities and world domination enlighten me as to why these nazi's are more cuddly and friendly than the last lot
good for you billy. calling it right IMO... an group wanting to style themselves with nazi in the title should not be entitled to anything let alone freedom to come to a city and cause trouble etc etc
What about communist groups etc etc history is littered with evil acts committed in the name of ideology either religious or political. We have just had the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, that for me is probably the greatest single act war crime ever. Many people beleive ( rightly or wrongly) that Israel has and continues to commit racist atrocities against palestine, do we ban marches in support or against israel? We need a line in the sand but can't allow mob rule to decide on a day by day basis where that line is.
Try the Rape of Nanking, documented by Bergamini in his book Japan's Imperial Conspiracy. Over 250k civillians massacred in a week, more than the combined total of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don't seem to have a Nanking Day to commemorate those though.
don't see the nuke'm party trying to organize a celebration on the anniversary of the hiroshima bomb. also communist doesn't necessarily = stalin. communist can mean something very different to each person wanting to live on a commune in the country thats the thing NEO NAZI = very specific. at the very least we can say hey... those who went before fought to keep us free from nazis so to have clowns walking the streets spouting that bile is an affront to common decency. .......................... this is like they oh why shouldn't someone be able to marry a cow if they want debate. RIGHTS have RESPONSIBILITIES. The right to speak freely is not the right to go out of your way to offend someone else. Its a vital right to stand up and say I don't agree with x or y for the good of everyone. Its not the right to stand up and call people of different race, color or creed sub human and to then trample of them.
nope... nor the use of live chinese prisoner to make chemical weapons.... In the end hiroshima was an affront to humanity. just as 1000 other things that occured can be. The fire bombing of german cities caused countless lives. the fire bombing of toyko costs countless lives. The thing is the japanese were not listening or seeing what was coming. It is finally to their slight credit that when the sledgehammer was used to crack the egg they actually stood back from the brink... unlike the damned nazis in germany who inflicted self destruction on the citizens of berlin in april and may 1945. humans are bull headed.
Of course how could I leave that off my list, that is a really strange one in that it seemed to involve some kind of mass hysteria that lasted weeks with troops photographing each other seemingly proud of their acts. I dont like to do numbers of those kinds of things partly because they are so unreliable but more so that it somehow negates the human suffering as though we were accountants. Not having a go at you there just failing badly to explain my feelings on it.
Ah I see, I thought you were arguing against those particular groups rather than using them as an example of the limitations. If we're talking about an overarching principle, then I strongly believe that you should be allowed to say whatever you like PROVIDED it's not inciting any act of violence or harm upon innocent men, women or children. It's that simple for me, and to be honest pretty black and white. You can be a member of Al-Quaeda or the Neo-nazi party I couldn't give a 5hit. In fact, if you're a member of those organisations I WANT to hear what you have to say. Billy, talking is never a bad thing. I'd rather people talk than shoot at each other. Listening to people means we can tackle their misconceptions and ignorances. Most of the problems in this world are precisely bcos not enough people are willing to listen and talk to people they believe are "evil" or stand for "destruction of the Jews and the disabled, the forced repatriation of ethnic minorities and world domination". IF they're talking about harming innocent people then no thank you, but if they want to speak out about why they don't like Jews, or Hindus, or Catholics, or the disabled, or blacks, or ethnic minorities, then yeh go ahead, lets see what you have to say. And then it's up to the rest of us to educate and convince them otherwise.
nah...... if you are a card carrying member of either you are an enemy of the state... as for listening... that is rather bemusing as if you put yourself in their shoes they have no interest in talking to you. they just see it as a sign of weakness.
Yeh, calling them an enemy of state doesn't get anyone anywhere. They are, they aren't, both irrelevant to the point of free speech. This idea they have no interest in talking to you is bollox quite frankly. If they didn't want to talk to you they wouldn't be out shouting about it on the streets. You go high enough, there's always someone desperate to talk to you.
And about Sinn Fein... even now, but we still listened to them, talked to them, and found a solution.
