SDL/ANTI FACIST MARCH IN PERTH

[Menzel]

3 minutes ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

The example of the fire is not really a good comparison. One causes panic and alarm and deaths. Stating opinions does not. 

 

The example of the fire is a historical example of a legal ruling where dangerous speech is not protected. Also funny how when the likes of the Jobbik go off on speaking tours, or white nationalists in America do, their "stating opinions" means "panic and alarm and deaths" all suspiciously turn up.

 

 

[The Chlamydia Kid]

 
What I would say about Orange order marches and other political marches is they should be self financing. If they want roads closed and Police directing traffic and pedestrians, they should pay for it. Why should Council Tax payers have to fund these people?

Didn't realise orange order members and those that follow parades were exempt from paying council tax.

[Fifes Elite Force]

1 minute ago, Menzel said:

The example of the fire is a historical example of a legal ruling where dangerous speech is not protected. Also funny how when the likes of the Jobbik go off on speaking tours, or white nationalists in America do, their "stating opinions" means "panic and alarm and deaths" all suspiciously turn up.

 

 

I know, i'v heard the example before. But theres a clear difference between the two types of speech. Saying something that causes panic in an enclosed space where they think their life is in immediate danger from a fire is different from the "panic" from hearing an opinion you don't like.

[Menzel]

So if it's merely just an opinion people don't like why is there legislation against it in a whole number of countries? If you want to protect Nazis or whatever calling for people to be killed so be it, but I won't. 

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

7 hours ago, LondonHMFC said:

Reads like a David Sullivan transfer offer. 

I'm surprised that Paulo hasn't shown up to brag about how Gorgie Mosque has a far bigger capacity and a better view of Edinburgh Castle.

[DrewDon]

Being 'tolerant' of fascists has, of course, been a historically successful strategy. 

[Fifes Elite Force]

6 minutes ago, Menzel said:

So if it's merely just an opinion people don't like why is there legislation against it in a whole number of countries? If you want to protect Nazis or whatever calling for people to be killed so be it, but I won't. 

Theres a number of reasons really and I dont defend "nazis" I defend the right of assembly.  I think people don't really appreciate important documents like the bill of rights these days and feelings rather than liberty are taken more into account these days. I am very fearful of the state regulating what we can and can't say, what is allowed generally and I think it's a bigger issue than a few morons like the SDL. We already have it in football specifically here around offensiveness. Like I said earlier their views can be destroyed via debate if give a platform rather than making martyrs or giving an excuse for victimhood like Farage in Aberdeen 

 

My counter question is on the same line, why do we currently allow people to do it? What was the thinking behind it?

[Fifes Elite Force]

4 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

Being 'tolerant' of fascists has, of course, been a historically successful strategy. 

Actually it has. I named the examples. Nick Griffin on question time was destroyed when he was given a platform. The national front was another that was taken apart after given a platform to air their views in marches. 

Running guys like Farage out of Aberdeen made things worse.

[Granny Danger]

Nazis apologists passing themselves off as defenders of free speech is, sadly, nothing new.

 

[The Chlamydia Kid]

So if it's merely just an opinion people don't like why is there legislation against it in a whole number of countries? If you want to protect Nazis or whatever calling for people to be killed so be it, but I won't. 

Where have folk been marching and calling for that?

[Sloop John B]

1 minute ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

Actuslly it has. I named the examples. Nick Griffin on question time was destroyed when he was given a platform. The national front was another that was taken apart after given a platform to air their views

 

And after that, the Far Right movements decided to just give up and nothing of note has happened since 2009.

[Fifes Elite Force]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

Nazis apologists passing themselves off as defenders of free speech is, sadly, nothing new.

 

Consdiering nazis are the greatest example of a group against free speech the example doesn't work

[Fifes Elite Force]

3 minutes ago, Sloop John B said:

 

And after that, the Far Right movements decided to just give up and nothing of note has happened since 2009.

Things happen in a country of 60M people but the far right have never really held any sort of political power in this country. 

 

If putting up with a demo by about 40 folk from the SDL is all we need to worry about we are doing ok tbh

[Menzel]

7 minutes ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

Theres a number of reasons really and I dont defend "nazis" I defend the right of assembly.  I think people don't really appreciate important documents like the bill of rights these days and feelings rather than liberty are taken more into account these days. I am very fearful of the state regulating what we can and can't say, what is allowed generally and I think it's a bigger issue than a few morons like the SDL. We already have it in football specifically here around offensiveness. Like I said earlier their views can be destroyed via debate if give a platform rather than making martyrs or giving an excuse for victimhood like Farage in Aberdeen 

 

My counter question is on the same line, why do we currently allow people to do it? What was the thinking behind it?

So I guess the biggest problems of world history in the last 200 years have been a lack of quality debate?

 

 

[Fifes Elite Force]

Just now, Menzel said:

So I guess the biggest problems of world history in the last 200 years have been a lack of quality debate?

 

 

I wouldnt say that or even hinted at it. I think it hasn't helped at times though.

One thing that was a massive issue was a very intolerant group called the Nazis who didn't like anyone expressing an opinion they didn't like and used the state to regulate what people should do and think and used violence to stop people voicing an opinion.

[Torpar]

Stop referring to these morons as Nazis. The Nazis were a highly organised, ruthlessly efficient force that ruled a nation and took over several others.

The SDL are a gang of neds that don't like Muslims and non whites

[Fifes Elite Force]

2 minutes ago, Torpar said:

Stop referring to these morons as Nazis. The Nazis were a highly organised, ruthlessly efficient force that ruled a nation and took over several others.

The SDL are a gang of neds that don't like Muslims and non whites

Same sort of small minded views tbh 

[Menzel]

2 minutes ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

 

One thing that was a massive issue was a very intolerant group called the Nazis who didn't like anyone expressing an opinion they didn't like and used the state to regulate what people should do and think and used violence to stop people voicing an opinion.

Do I really need to spell out why that's a terrible example to use?

[Fifes Elite Force]

2 minutes ago, Menzel said:

Do I really need to spell out why that's a terrible example to use?

Go for it.

I'm comparing behaviours. What's the difference between the two in terms violence to stop someone expressing an opinion?

[Menzel]

4 minutes ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

Go for it.

Namely the SDP and others going against the KPD in vociferously defending the NSDAP's freedom of speech, pretty much right up until the Ermächtigungsgesetz.

ETA: nice stealth edit afterwards.