Lebanon voted against their fascists; Britain elected a few

[DanaC]

A few years ago during the run up to an election, a friend of mine was delivering Hope not Hate leaflets in one of the BNP's target areas. The BNP bussed in a bunch of their activists from all over the country and rhings got nasty. Ended up with the police having to escort the Hope not Hate leafleters to safety.

There have been numerous incidents involving sudden unexpected beatings of leafletters.

In a speech to his activists, referring to their big push for the North a few years ago, Griffin said (I am paraphrasing, but I htink I get the quote almost right:

"The battle for the hearts and minds of the North will not be won at the ballot box. It will be won on the streets with boots and fists"

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

You make a good point/distinction there in regards to whether they performed a personal act against you or not, maybe I should have used a different example instead like killing someone for their car. To me what matters most is that the person is willing to kill period, whether it be for money or one less gay man in the world. The fact that they think they're above society and can do what they like, i.e. straight up murder someone, is more damaging in my mind than the racial or religious motivations behind the killing. Though I can see how racial or religious hatred can be a catalyst for tensions to run high enough that killings take place, and in that regard solving those differences is a high priority.

The purpose of the hate crime is not that the person thinks they are above the laws/beliefs of society, a hate crime is meant to hurt society, or are using crime to change it in a way they agree with. Their 'example' is the individual victim, but their target is society as a whole.
Yes when a person commits a personal crime, they hurt society as a whole as well, but that is not necessarily their purpose. I think purpose is important when a crime is committed. That is why their are differing levels of punishment for murder or other crimes. The 'purpose' indicates whether or not that person is repentant and able to be reabilitated.

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by DanaC

A few years ago during the run up to an election, a friend of mine was delivering Hope not Hate leaflets in one of the BNP's target areas. The BNP bussed in a bunch of their activists from all over the country and rhings got nasty. Ended up with the police having to escort the Hope not Hate leafleters to safety.

There have been numerous incidents involving sudden unexpected beatings of leafletters.

In a speech to his activists, referring to their big push for the North a few years ago, Griffin said (I am paraphrasing, but I htink I get the quote almost right:

"The battle for the hearts and minds of the North will not be won at the ballot box. It will be won on the streets with boots and fists"

Sounds like he's inciting violence against his opponents in order to scare up votes. Was he reprimanded for this kinda of hate-talk?
For me its a fine line to censor 'hate-talk' and freedom of speech. I believe in America the only type of speech that is punishable, is talk about overthrowing the government. Of course there are plenty of examples where the freedom violated on a regular basis.
Although I agree that the extremist groups often incite violence with lies and hate-speech, I don't want speech censored, even that. I can see how it could turn into overall censorship way too quick.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

There needn't be a threat either. just a malicious act against a group or individual because of his/her/their commonality, be it sex, race, religion whatever...

Which is, in itself, a threat against anyone else who shares that commonality.

[classicman]

semantics and a waste.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Bullitt

You make a good point/distinction there in regards to whether they performed a personal act against you or not, maybe I should have used a different example instead like killing someone for their car. To me what matters most is that the person is willing to kill period, whether it be for money or one less gay man in the world. The fact that they think they're above society and can do what they like, i.e. straight up murder someone, is more damaging in my mind than the racial or religious motivations behind the killing. Though I can see how racial or religious hatred can be a catalyst for tensions to run high enough that killings take place, and in that regard solving those differences is a high priority.

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

The purpose of the hate crime is not that the person thinks they are above the laws/beliefs of society, a hate crime is meant to hurt society, or are using crime to change it in a way they agree with. Their 'example' is the individual victim, but their target is society as a whole.
Yes when a person commits a personal crime, they hurt society as a whole as well, but that is not necessarily their purpose. I think purpose is important when a crime is committed. That is why their are differing levels of punishment for murder or other crimes. The 'purpose' indicates whether or not that person is repentant and able to be reabilitated.

The problem is, some of these groups ARE forcing society to change, due to their acts. Abortion is legal in this country, but abortion services have gone down over the past 20-30 years because of the crimes some of these whackos commit. And that is a shame. And now another clinic has shut down, and there is one more doctor who isn't available to perform late-term abortions for people whose life might be danger, or who might have a serious problem if they give birth.

And when Janet Napolitano had the gall to say these crimes would be on the rise, she was reamed for saying it. Yet here they are, on the rise, and I haven't heard a SINGLE FUCKING APOLOGY from any of the rightwing politicos for making her apologize for saying something that has obviously come true. You know why, right? Because they actually WANT this shit to happen, because it furthers their political agenda to make abortion so difficult to get, that it simply won't be available, even though it remains legal. I'm shocked more people aren't upset about this, like seriously upset, and demanding something be done. Those organizations are domestic terrorist organizations, plain and simple, and they need to be shut down.

[classicman]

Those organizations are domestic terrorist organizations, plain and simple, and they need to be shut down.

Exactly who are they?

[DanaC]

The BNP's membership rules may make them prosecutable. I do hope so. It really shouldn't be acceptable to only allow white members of a political party. How can they possibly seek to serve as elected members given that such members are there to represent the whole of their constituency?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8114619.stm

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The BNP's membership rules may make them prosecutable. I do hope so. It really shouldn't be acceptable to only allow white members of a political party. How can they possibly seek to serve as elected members given that such members are there to represent the whole of their constituency?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8114619.stm

Which is why, right, we gotta send all them forinners back where dey came from, right? Then, no problem, right? Youse got that ya leftie manc tart? :p

[Griff]

Originally Posted by DanaC

'just' mass murder? No. That attack was a crime against the entire American people. If, as they believe, they are at war, thne they are at the very least guilty of a warcrime.

I understand the POV, but I'm a little dubious. The attack had very long tentacles but was it a crime against me? I don't think so. It was an attack first on the people and property directly impacted, then against a symbol of corporate capitalism. Is it possible that some on the right who fail to see the logic of hate crimes were more likely to feel personally attacked on 9/11? *shrug* It puts a different spin on the right's claim to individualism.

[classicman]

I had three friends who worked in the towers. One since 6th grade another I work with and a third I know from church.

Was this an attack on me personally? No, not really. But it affected me in a persona way indirectly. It was moreso an attack on us as a nation and on our beliefs. We are no longer protected, safe, untouchable....

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Exactly who are they?

The organizations that post personal information online about doctors who perform abortions, and incite to people to go murder them.

"...Yesterday, I explored the ties between Dr. James Patrick Johnston, a key member of the Amendment 48 campaign team, and some of the most virulent paramilitary antiabortion groups in the nation — the Army of God, Christian Gallery and Minutemen United. Johnston has written tracts for these groups that defend the murder of reproductive health clinic staff under ultraconservative interpretations of Biblical law.

In the definitive book, Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War, the authors detail the rise of Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League and the Army of God's Rev. Michael Bray — cohorts of Johnston's whom he has praised on his many anti-abortion Web sites and in whose protests he has participated. Bray wrote the how-to manual on clinic bombings and "defensible force" tactics and holds some of the most extreme views in the antiabortion movement...
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...lames-colorado

People like THAT.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by classicman

Was this an attack on me personally? No, not really. But it affected me in a persona way indirectly. It was moreso an attack on us as a nation and on our beliefs. We are no longer protected, safe, untouchable....

What floor were your beliefs on?