I did read that one, admittedly with reluctance because I've found the independent can be a lot more opinion than fact(ala msnbc/fox). The article mostly states Mr. Osborne accuses the gallery of many things, by far the worst is association with the website "Amerika" which I'm not familiar with, but unless it is so vile that even referencing it when discussing ideologies is 'bad' it didn't seem enough to make the gallery into witches, errr nazis.

For the Canadian incident, the full debate she showed a clip from is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc

I'm afraid it's an hour long, but I don't know which 'clip' she would have been playing, although it was debate between Mattes and Peterson.

Lindsay Shepherd was the TA involved, this is the full audio recording of the meeting she was pulled into with 3 full staff and faculty to 'discuss' how her action of playing the video was wrong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nd32_uIcnI

Some was addressed.
Read the first link... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ld50-gallery-protest-lucia-diego-donald-trump-alt-right-hackney-dalston-a7596346.html
Stevens wasn't the only one.

If they claim they have them speak there to " provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." but hold the events in secret, only open to far right wingers and Nazis, that's pretty blatantly a lie. Don't you agree?

When they gave private information about the artists who outed their secret agenda to Amerika they became unambiguously guilty by their own actions, not just association....and guilt by association is still guilt. If I stand with, support, defend, and host NAMBLA, I fully expect to be lumped with them. They NEVER denounced the hate, racism, or fascism they supported, and they participated with them in attacks against those who oppose Nazis. Ergo-Nazi.

Try the first one....lazybones. ;-) It lays out both the stated intent and the actions that belie that statement.

When the video guy is well known for publicly defending the far right, neo Nazi supporting gallery that holds private, secret white power rallies, that's enough for me. He clearly made himself look like a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and that's how the community sees him. He may just be a friend to Nazis, not one himself, but that's both a distinction without a clear difference and an image he created without stating clearly that he disagrees with them but supports their right to be wrong. That's on him.

It seems far easier to read the links than try to research it yourself, so I don't understand why you decided to ignore the research offered in favor of your own unproductive but far more labor intensive research. Seems a bit like putting fingers in your ears and saying you hear no evidence during a discussion.

@newtboy,

EDIT: drafted this and sent while you were writing previous reply, so maybe some of this is addressed?

Alright, I've gone one step further and read through the shutdownld50 tumblr 'evidence' seeing as they of all places probably gather the most condemning evidence they could.

The evidence amounts to putting on 1 event/exhibit that included far right folks, and included "Brett Stevens", whom I'm not familiar with but the quote from him on Breivik certainly sounds bad. In addition to putting on this exhibit, the even worse accusation is that they didn't really advertise it much publicly. Now, call me skeptical, but I have to believe that if they HAD advertised it heavily that ALSO would have compounded their guilt.

To me it still looks like guilt be association. The gallery had the audacity to host speakers that people disliked, so ergo-nazi!

Please though, if there is more or better evidence then please do let me know, or point me to what I'm missing. Is the Stevens guy so vehemently pro-nazi and and pro-violence that the association really should be enough? I'm inclined to believe no else they'd have better and more extensive quotes to use against him.

Again, I'm coming from a place of not knowing any of these people's backgrounds or history, but if we are supposed to believe them to be villians of such a high degree, I want a stronger case than those people say so and if you spent a few weeks of research on it you'd agree, trust us.

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

Not that I'm lazy, but I don't care enough to read every single article you linked. I read the couple that seemed most promising, and then I went and did some searches for more evidence, I haven't found better evidence than what I mentioned.

Do you have a specific link, or one of those above, that clearly lays out the intent of gallery or any other evidence against the video guy than, he dared suggest the gallery was covered under free speech?

He is a vocal supporter of the gallery who has repeatedly gone on TV to defend the gallery holding white power events, a gallery who's intent is to legitimize Nazism and far right racist ideology through art and lectures. To me, that's Nazi figurehead.

The gallery leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.
This makes them not just a place that allows Nazis a platform, but an active member.

This info and more is in the links provided. Read it please.

The gallery is accused of repeatedly bringing in white-supremacists. The guy in the video is accused of being a neo-nazi figurehead.

The only evidence I’m seeing though is the gallery bringing in one guy I’d clearly label white supremacist, and then a bunch of people that same to have the wrong opinions on immigration, but it’s hardly clear that there is anymore evidence than that with which to convict.

This matters to me because here in Canada a student assistant was brought in for discipline and became the center of a storm for playing a fee minutes if an interview that included UT prof Jordan Peterson. She was accused of promoting hate and violence(and even committing violence herself) for the act of playing the video. All this because Jordan Peterson is a ‘well known’ alt-right extremist...

The evidence I’ve seen here has the same stink to it and so I’m reluctant to just convict the accused on the mobs say so.

If the same standard applies, then yes, you are saying you expect a lone BLM activist at a clan rally to be treated better...because this treatment is unacceptable in your opinion.

His speech, or at least the speech he's defending, has been used to exactly that effect publicly and repeatedly in recent past, maybe just seconds earlier we don't know, so now it seems you've come around to my side. Am I wrong?

No, I never heard of this before this video, I have no other info, nor have I independently verified what I found. That said, a gallery that repeatedly hosts Nazis and white power speakers, surely bringing with them crowds of Nazis and white power groups into a neighborhood IS acting as a neo Nazi hq, at least during those multiple events.

I think if the gallery wasn't in a residential neighborhood but in the country, the "wrong think" would be fine, it's that they repeatedly turn the neighborhood into a race war zone by holding what amounts to white power rallies people would be outraged by, imo...but I'm not British, I can imagine they think worse about Nazis than Americans do and might be less tolerant.

I don't disagree that the gallery may have intended to just be an open space available to anyone, but what they became was a beacon to Nazis and racists, a safe place to hold rallies and events in a neighborhood that clearly doesn't want them. A place from which to provoke. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
When they saw how angry their neighbors were at the groups they brought to the neighborhood they should have changed how they operate, or where, but seemingly didn't.


So, while the gallery may not be specifically a Nazi HQ, by hosting the speakers and groups it does, it supports their ideologies and facilitated spreading their message by offering them a platform. That makes them complicit, intentionally so after the first protest when they were put on notice the neighbors are outraged.

Context matters. Truth matters.

Knowing now that he's a well known Nazi figurehead, a spokesman for the pro Nazi gallery being protested, do you see how the title and description are both utter bullshit lies, a 100% misrepresentation of the truth here?

He is not called a Nazi for supporting free speech. That's a blatant, disgusting, Nazi sympathizing lie he hoped you would repeat. I wish you were ashamed of that, but you just defend it.

His sentiments on his sign aren't the unacceptable sentiments he's removed for, they are the cover for the Nazism he espouses and supports, and the red herring he hoped would distract you from them...It worked, even though you know the truth it still works. *facepalm.

I'm ashamed for you that you got suckered into defending Nazis because for two minutes he managed to appear reasonable and you're willing to completely ignore context, just like he planned.

I'm more ashamed for you that you bought it so deeply that you repeated the bullshit, totally false descriptions without considering you are being duped by a nazi into supporting their cause.

@newtboy
Do you honestly believe a BLM sign holder at a clan March would be treated better? What about at a Trump rally? If you claim to think either case wouldn't end in hospitalization, you're not being honest.

Not only did I never claim that, I have trouble figuring why you think I would? My second sentence again:"My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies."

I oppose meeting speech with force excepting when that speech is being used to promote violence or harm, I'm also willing to allow that 'speech' can also amount to being disruptive or harassment like your notion of bringing inappropriate material to a kids park, or using a megaphone inches from someone's face.

I kind of thought on that point we'd find agreement, or at least understanding and agree to disagree?

Opening a new point from you're statement:He was the instigator. His sign amounts to "you will not silence our Nazi voice" at a rally pushing to silence their Nazi voice in their neighborhood.

I've read a few of the links you provided, and looked up a few articles on the gallery and I'm having troubles with the characterization. Do you have a good specific link that more clearly focuses on the nazi support from the gallery? The reading I've done seems to describe an art gallery, that allowed exhibits and talks from far-right and at least arguably fascist speakers on possibly a few occasions. You seem to talk like it was operating openly as a neo-nazi HQ.

So, what I've looked up so far, it does look an awful lot like a gallery pulled in speakers that people disliked, so they rallied to shut down the gallery as punishment for allowing wrong-think to be spoken. Then when guys like the one in the video came to defend free-speech, they too were classed as nazi's and lumped in as enemies too. Last article I found by the guy in video, so maybe he's lying, but other articles I've found also suggest that the gallery operated more generally rather than being an explicitly alt-right hub:
https://medium.com/@dctvbot/i-regret-nothing-c05401636032

I'm sure the sign-holder's gallery isn't filled with rainbows and fuzzy ducklings, but he wasn't the equivalent of Illinois nazis marching in Skokie, either. The old school Liberal antidote to hateful speech is more and better speech, not mob violence.

It seems that one of his crimes was showing material in support of Donald Trump, who, loathe him if you will, is still the legally elected president of one of the UKs chief allies. If his supporters can't make their case in public then I fear for the future of civil discourse.

Regardless of the content of whatever expression this guy may have made elsewhere, in the video he really is protesting in favor of free speech, and he really is being assaulted while the cops wander away. I hold with the friends of Voltaire, who, though they might disapprove of what he says would defend to the death his right to say it.

As for editing the video, what could he have been doing in the lead up to this scene? Hawking Trump bobble-heads?

I openly admit I’m plenty ignorant on the background to all this.

My opinion though lies the same whether it’s this guy treated as he was in the video, or if the situation was reversed and the lone guy had a BLM sign instead, same standard applies. You had a very large crowd around him not content to shout him down, but intent on using force to chase him off and trying to again use force to take his sign from him. Thats over the line and I don’t care who is doing the pushing or what the sign actually says. As above, if the sign or message is itself a promotion of violence, then its the police and court system you want to pull in, not the mob or vigilantism.

The little background I read from your links though suggests the large crowd had been there repeatedly with the same purpose of getting the gallery/HQ shutdown. Seems awful likely to me guy with sign was then standing outside said gallery and all the more aught have the right to stand near it with a simple sign, without being dismissed as the one ‘invading’ or stealing the protestors platform. To be honest most of the discussion about giving or blocking platforms reeks to me of just renaming stuff so folks can duck the well worn arguments in support of free speech.

Sorry @Buttle it seems you fell for some far right bullshit.
This video is apparently three years old.
It also hides the truth of what's happening, this is not some man on the street, he's a public figurehead of white supremacist organisations in the UK, standing in front of what amounts to their headquarters.


From Reddit-
u/kanyeguisada did the work on this three years ago - here's there very level headed account of this.

"So looking into this...
The place being protested was the LD50 gallery in Hackney, London. They and owner Lucia Diego describe themselves as "neo-reactionary" but they are in fact supporting literal fascists and white supremacists and were trying to become the organizing spot in London for such groups to give them legitimacy and attempt to convert white progressives to their cause through the art world:

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ld50-gallery-protest-lucia-diego-donald-trump-alt-right-hackney-dalston-a7596346.html

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2017/03/video-protesters-gather-outside-dalston-art-gallery-over-controversial-exhibition/

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/politics/ld50-gallery-anti-fascist-protesters-march-through-dalston-1-4907083

https://www.hackneycitizen.co.uk/2017/02/25/ld50-gallery-protest-video-anti-fascists-clash-lone-counter-protester/

https://shutdownld50.tumblr.com/

The "free speech protestor" in this video is Daniel/DC Miller, who not only gave his name to the media, but is a public figure apparently widely known in Hackney for his support of LD50 and who holds (and tries to hold) public lectures on literal white-supremacist fascists:

https://www.facebook.com/events/100614430464838/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Evola

http://www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/it-ok-to-punch-nazi-art-gallery

http://thebaffler.com/latest/ld50-nolan

Now I'm all for free speech in the US. I think even white supremacists like the KKK have the right to speak their disgusting speech and hold rallies and people thinking otherwise should ask themselves what happens when speech they support suddenly might become considered hate speech. For instance many people on the left who support BDS/sanctions on Israel are often accused of "hate speech" simply for calling Israel an apartheid state. Free speech isn't just something the right cares about.

However, other people have the right to free speech too, and can yell right back at you and of course https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png. The guy in this video wasn't just some guy off the street supporting free speech rights but was actually a supporter of literal far-right white-supremacist fascism and was known to the community before this happened, so maybe hold off on the outrage about how mean the protestors were to him until you get the whole picture."

*fakenews

These are really impressive. I'm not a big art person (gallery art, I mean)...but these are very intriguing. I'd put one in my house. But probably couldn't afford it.