search results matching tag: protestors

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (100)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (7)     Comments (242)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

It must be so frustrating that you (maga) have so thoroughly destroyed your credibility that no one even cares about your lies trying to shield the disgraced ex president from crimes he has repeatedly bragged about publicly and now are trying to pretend he didn’t pay a porn star to hide his tryst with her from voters, then falsified business records to hide the payment. Maybe you shouldn’t have spent the last 8 years screaming bloody murder about all the wolves then laughing when help arrived. Now people are hoping there is a wolf and that it eats you and yours…but no one is coming to check.

PS- Where’s Barron?

PPS- since you seek the truth, it’s “it’s” when you are shortening “it is”. “Its” is the possessive word, like "his" and "her," for nouns without gender.

PPPS- Outside court Trump said he had an illegal NDA….likely a slip of the tongue or misstatement, but that’s what he said. He also said “maga is being punked by Ashton Kutcher….I think I know what that means” but he doesn’t, because he is the prank on you, you are being punked by Trump, he absolutely didn’t get that.

Finally some supporters showed up for him and they released a truckload of penis balloons on NY…for the children. (This is a crime and immoral). I’m guessing the anti Trum protestors will bring mushroom tip balloons for Trump soon, the full shaft and balls penis balloons definitely aren’t representative of him.

Alito has been caught with photos of him flying an upside down flag during the attempted coup to signal his support for the fake “stop the steel” (because you can’t spell “steal”) movement that became an anti American anti democratic terrorist gang that tried to end democracy in America on Jan 6. Just like the criminal Thomas. If they both don’t recuse themselves from any Jan 6 case, they may as well disband because they will prove themselves to be not judges but partisan political operatives, and when Dems take the other two thirds of government they will all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and replaced, including the fraudulently appointed Comey and Kavenaugh. Bye Felicia.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

North America’s Building Trades Unions is endorsing President Biden for 2024, and the union is out with a new ad slamming former President Trump for giving them lip service but doing absolutely nothing he promised the union when he met with them in 2017. Didn’t protect their jobs, didn’t protect their pensions, didn’t level out trade deficits, never invested in infrastructure….it was all empty promises he never intended and was incapable of following through on, just like every promise he’s ever made.
Conversely, Biden saved their pensions, invested in infrastructure, and as a result not only saved their jobs but created hundreds of thousands more…and did not lie to them about his plans to get their votes!
Trump has said he intends to abuse the power of the office to exact revenge against the well over half of America that doesn’t support him, and become a dictator on day 1 (no dictator has ever willingly abdicated their position, Trump wouldn’t be the first).
This you guy…this yoar pick! 😂
Again, no one showed up to his trial after he again begged his supporters to protest for him…only 6 people today in the empty space in front of the courthouse set aside for protestors exactly where he claims they aren’t allowed to be.

Jordan Klepper Takes On Canadian Truckers | The Daily Show

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

A company cancelling a multi-billion dollar project means multi-billion dollars not spent on the work of the project, that many jobs out of the economy. Exactly the same as a car manufacturer shutting down for a week, by your logic nothing was lost, the company just stopped spending money for a couple days...

I only support the groups right to protest, and not to illegally block roads or borders. I stand by my wish is for their prompt arrest when illegal blocking roads, borders or places of business.

That said, I believe it also wrong of me to fail to point out that our federal government has continually refused to act as I would wish in promptly shutting down illegal blockades. This is the very first instance were they've shown any interest in a prompt police enforced end, and they've in fact jump much further to invoking a declaration of national emergency so they can also target protesters bank accounts directly and without court orders.

An analogy would be someone that supports arresting people for possession of marijuana. The government then proceeds to only selectively enforce that law, say only acting to make arrests when people are a particular creed or color. It's perfectly consistent to believe the government arrests are wrong and unfair, and to NOT support them, while at the same time still believing the idea of the rule applied fairly being a good idea.

One side is about what I think the line for protest should be:
-I believe the right to protest should be independent of creed or belief, and should only be restricted when actions taken are illegal.(Ideally illegal being defined as impeding on freedoms of others)

By that, the convoy blockade of border or streets should have led to immediate arrests.

In the eye of fairness though, the last two years have already seen at a minimum 3 major protests, that included illegal blockades of work sites and railways and those were ALL allowed to run for weeks and in 2 cases months. The government of the day even tripped over themselves to message their support for the overall causes of the protestors.

In that light, it's wrong to simply ignore the fact that the first protest that is likely to vote conservative is the ONLY one where the government immediately condemns everything about them and feels compelled to intervene urgently.

Churches were literally burning last summer, and our PM's public statements spent most of their time sympathizing with the anger before pleading that burning churches isn't helpful. Where'd all that compassion for folks that you disagree with go when it meant a small number of downtown Ottawa business shutdown and horns honking go. Now our PM invokes terrorizing of the populace.

Trudeau's actions have been distressingly similar to Trump's as the division in our country grows, he's using his words to reach out to the extreme end of his side of the aisle, while tossing gasoline and vitriol onto his opposition. It's making things worse in the worst possible way when we need leaders uniting instead of stoking further division.

Jordan Klepper Takes On Canadian Truckers | The Daily Show

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

I agree with more of what you say than you make out. You need to appreciate how different Canada is from the US, particularly in power balance within government and corresponding police action and media coverage.

Long delays in stopping illegal blockade and protest activity is the norm.
-Fairy Creek blockades persisted almost 12 months before police took action
-Blockade of Coastal Link pipepline went on for months before police intervened to allow work to continue.
-Mohawk solidarity blockade of railways in Ontario persisted multiple weeks

The difference to the protests today, the Liberal government was tripping over themselves to reach out to those protest groups, while immediately spitting in the faces of this one.

I've always been of the opinion illegally blocking a roadway, border or business should lead to arrests within the time it takes to notify and send police.

The problem here from a Canadian eye, is that the only time current government is interested in bringing a hammer down is based not upon the actions of protestors, but instead based upon their professed cause.

I refuse to accept tying the right to protest to what cause is being rallied to.

Jordan Klepper Takes On Canadian Truckers | The Daily Show

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

Finally we're talking about my Canada .

I'm agreed with calling 90% of what the convoy and truckers are protesting as being misguided, ill informed or flat out wrong. That however shouldn't be what the right to protest is based upon.

The extent of the protestors illegal activity seems to have been blocking of roadways and borders. Which in Canada isn't exactly new:
-Blockading of roads to logging work sites to "protect old growth forest"
-Blockading of roads pipeline construction sites
-Blockading of transportation highways and railroads

In the past 2 years alone, those various sites have seen blockades ranging from weeks to months. In virtually every single one of those instances the Liberal government went out to meet and negotiate with the protestors while allowing them to continue for weeks to months. In one of the biggest protests Trudeau himself went to meet with the groups in person. Trudeau has a video of himself praising the farmer convoy and blockades in India, declaring his government will always defend the right of groups to protest.(those groups blocked multiple border crossings)

This time though, Trudeau started out with insulting, ridiculing and belittling the protestors. Within the first day of the protests, politicians and our national news corp in CBC were demanding an immediate end to the protests.

The protests that have seen comparable zero violence to the protests in the US in support of Floyd(which I support), where condemned repeatedly by the CBC and Trudeau as terrorizing the populace and inciting violence. For reference, Trudeau remained steadfast in support of the Floyd protestors right to protest.

The federal government essentially tried insults and ridicule to try and end this protest though, and when that didn't work they invoked a national emergency measures act that requires both:
-A threat to Canada's sovereignty
-A threat that can not be addressed by any other laws or means

The government then proceeded to empower themselves to not merely arrest protestors, but to freeze/seize the bank accounts of anyone considered to be supporting the protest, with no court oversight required.

The difference in how protestors are treated based upon what it is they are protesting is alarming and should be a red flag for anyone and everyone.

For reference, while these protests were going on, a pipeline worksite in BC that has been continually shut down by protests for the last several years was attacked in the night by a mob wielding machetes and axes. The workers and security were chased off and millions in damages were done to the site afterwards. Trudeau didn't feel the need to even address the incident though because he was to busy villianizing the convoy. The CBC media buried the incident under local BC news, and downplayed it as an 'alleged' incident, despite RCMP having responded and even having had an officer injured in the incident. CBC also emphasized there wasn't any verified connection to the ongoing protests against the pipeline...

When you look at the narrative, despite my disagreeing with the vast majority of what the convoy is wanting to say, I am disgusted by the attempt to remove their right to say it and everyone wanting to support a strong democracy with the right protest should feel the same.

newtboy said:

Dumb shit snowflakes have been whining for the last 2 years, ignoring orders to make minor changes for both public health and to be able to reopen quickly, but like spoiled two year olds on time out, you guys kept defying orders, making the pandemic and the shutdowns exponentially worse, and restarting the “time out” clock.
You also complained non stop about shutting down the economy, hurting small businesses and commerce, but when a tiny (100+-) group of mostly white, swastika/confederate flag waiving truckers decide to shut down international commerce, costing hundreds of millions of dollars weekly (more than all rioting damage done in 2020, because they are targeting businesses and commerce) just to throw a tantrum, not achieve a thing, you are not just accepting of it, you support it.
Clearly your complaints about shutting down and hurting the economy to fight Covid and save hundreds of thousands of lives were not genuine since you are happy to do the same and worse to save the feelings of 100 truckers.…fuck your feelings, remember?…...big surprise, bob is a hypocrite willing to say anything to support his position today, including the exact opposite of his position yesterday.

All Trudeau needs to do is confiscate the trucks at gunpoint. Any trucker joining loses his truck. If it’s not their truck, they’ll have a huge bill from the owner.
Also, maybe remove their licenses for 2 years (or until restitution is paid in full). (Edit: nice, seems they actually thought of all that and have made it the law, and added up to a year in prison for those blocking commerce.)

Dumb shit, the restrictions
1)were also USA restrictions, like everyone else, Canadian truckers can’t cross the border without vaccinations. How does Trudeau stop that?…serious question I know you will ignore.
2) were being lifted in short order once the current variant slows its roll or border crossers get vaccinated
3) you really think a few hundred truckers (and a few hundred more rabble rousing morons with them) should have veto power over an entire federal government, and a federal government in another country, don’t you? But only when they look like you and waive confederate and nazi flags.
No, that’s not right? It has nothing to do with race? Why didn’t you support Trump defunding the police and/or removing immunity then?

So incredibly short sighted, myopic, hypocritical, self centered, likely racist, and just plain dumb Bob. You never disappoint.

Lemme guess, you support My Crackhead’s plan to illegally fly a helicopter over the protest and dump thousands of his pillows with bible verses covering them on Canada in a massive foreign littering/proselytizing scheme against a country that’s already banned him from entry. Right?

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Week 1 Summary

StukaFox says...

Bob,

"as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night."


This is completely correct; however, it is not a viable defense. You cannot go "looking for trouble" (trust me, I know this one).

Here's a link to a counter-argument, out of fairness sake:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/looking-trouble-framing-and-dignitary-interest-law-self-defense

This part is what will send Baby Rambo to Fed for the next billion years:

"This means that any lawful intent or behavior that may have contributed to the confrontation should not be used to undermine the claim of self-defense."

Please note the "lawful intent or behavior" part. Everything Rittenhouse did was illegal up until the point when he went postal on innocent, if rowdy, protestors. The prosecution is going to nail him to the cross and he won't be coming back in three days.

bobknight33 said:

@JiggaJohnson
@bcglorg

Prosecution's Main Witness ( victim) Admits Kyle Rittenhouse Acted in Self-Defense




Having a illegally owned a gun and self defense are 2 different crimes

as else mentioned" Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.
"

Hey, Republicans Who Supported This President...

JiggaJonson says...

Ironically, when i search up "BLM Violent" now, the first page is full of the trump rally because of rumored BLM infiltration

I did find this among the videos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNwotLdiK-I&feature=emb_title

But note, that things only changed from peaceful to "things got violent WHEN COUNTER PROTESTORS SHOWED UP"



BUT HEY maybe im all mixed up, and u can share some videos of black lives matter protestors beating a police officer to death and then spitting on his corpse. I'm looking to find a different use for this escrow arrangement i made.

bobknight33 said:

You all were mute when the leftest burn looted killed last 4 years.

No you care to hey this is wrong.

Eat Shit.

A Night at the Garden

moonsammy says...

For context (because I know I was curious): this video is from November 2017, 3 months after the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville in which a neo-nazi dickhead ran over a peaceful protestor. Trump had stated that in the conflict between the peaceful anti-racism group and the white supremacist / neo-nazi group there had been "fine people on both sides". I get the impression some of the people at PBS weren't thrilled about that, and wanted to give the public a gentle reminder that it can, in fact, happen here.

Fascism is alive and has been thriving the last few years in the US. With any luck we'll soon defeat it, like we did 75 years ago.

White supremacist Kenosha County Sheriff david beth

Mordhaus says...

I didn't buy anything. There are multiple videos that aren't being shown on most news sites.

Youtube is banning them as fast as they get posted.

Here is one: https://youtu.be/NSU9ZvnudFE

This is from Newsweek(https://www.newsweek.com/kyle-rittenhouse-sef-defense-murder-protests-1528301) who had access to the videos:

How the Kenosha shootings unfolded
In the wake of the shootings, several videos appeared on social media showing the moments before, during and after the first shooting took place.

In one video, Rittenhouse is seen being chased into a parking lot by several people while still armed with his gun.

One man then fires a gun into the air from several feet away from the 17-year-old before several others shots are fired.

In another clip from a different angle, one man seen chasing Rittenhouse appears to lunge at the 17-year-old before the suspect fires at least four times.

A body, later identified as Rosenbaum, is then seen on the ground and is assisted by another male. Rittenhouse appears to make a call on a cellphone before fleeing.

It is unclear why the 17-year-old was being chased in the first place. The parking lot is reportedly around several blocks away from the area he previously claimed to be protecting with the other armed men.

Later on, Rittenhouse is filmed being chased by more people down a residential street. He is seen stumbling and falling to the ground.

One person appears to stomp on him on the ground, before the 17-year-old fires twice, hitting Huber in the stomach and another man, Gaige Grosskreutz, who was carrying a handgun, in the arm.

According to the criminal complaint, an eyewitness video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse and throwing what was ultimately determined to be a plastic bag at the suspect, not an incendiary device.

"Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video," the document adds.

In response to Parkinson's tweet, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bosuie noted: "I have been seeing this everywhere on here. It is an explicit argument that if someone is trying to stop you after you killed someone, you can continue shooting and killing in 'self-defense.'

Parkinson added: "Why leave out during the 2nd shooting, after Rittenhouse trips, he was jumped by several men, including another armed protester, attacked by a skateboard—prior to firing more shots?"

The man holding the skateboard was Rittenberg's alleged second victim Huber, who died after being shot in the chest.

***You'll notice that even some of their videos were removed/banned***

I'm not saying the kid was in the right 100%. He definitely committed the crime of being under aged with a firearm. He shouldn't have listened to right wing calls to go defend property in a different state.

What we have is a kid who heard people shooting, got scared, a 'protester' threw what he thought was an incendiary device at him and he shot that person. He then tried to flee to the police line and you can read what else happened.

Here is the tweet that shows the survivor wishes he had just mag dumped his glock into the teen: https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1299086141329563648

Gaige Grosskreutz, 26. Hes a member of the People’s Revolution Movement. He has numerous encounters with the police but I couldn't find a felony. This was his biggest charge: Go Armed with Firearm While Intoxicated, a class A misdemeanor, Wisconsin Statutes 941.20(1)(b).

Anthony Huber. https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseSearchResults.html (for some reason it wont link, you can type his name in to see all, but here is one specific one https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2014CF000057&countyNo=39&index=0)
Online arrest records show Huber was arrested several times on battery, drugs and other charges. He also had a case from 2012 where he was convicted of domestic abuse strangulation and suffocation and false imprisonment with a dangerous weapon, both felonies. Other charges – for second-degree recklessly endangering safety, battery, and disorderly conduct – were dismissed but read in.

Joseph Rosenbaum. https://twitter.com/musicandwhiskey/status/1298861484752035840/photo/1
https://www.rt.com/usa/499205-kenosha-shooting-victim-id/
https://www.bailbondshq.com/arizona/azdoc-inmate-JOSEPH/172556
https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.gov/PrintInmate.aspx?ID=172556
Rosenbaum had an open criminal case on battery, disorderly conduct and domestic abuse charges, according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court website. (https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-kenosha-victims-identified-as-anthony-huber-joseph-rosenbaum-20200827-zvrsv7fpqfftlmjyrtjrmg5wwa-story.html
)

As far as right wing people showing up and pretending to be Antifa, I suppose anything is possible. But most of all these looting and rioting things have been going on since all this shit broke loose months ago. I doubt very much that all of these 'peaceful protestors' are RW loonies. Clearly the 3 that were shot in Kenosha weren't and they were all part of the groups rioting...I mean 'protesting.

There are more videos if you want to find them. Shoot me, N Rosenbaum is seen attacking and throwing something at Kyle. You can see a gun fired as well by someone else. Videos show them chasing a fleeing person, who at that point is being attacked by them. Skater boi was beating him prone with a skateboard. 'Medic' Grosskreutz was carrying a fully fucking loaded Glock 17 and grabbing Kyle's rifle.

You know I don't make up shit like Bob does. But I do look in multiple places to find out what I can before I say something. Like I said, the kid fucked up, but I 100% believe in his mind he was defending himself and trying to reach the police for help.

newtboy said:

Sorry, you seem to have bought the right wing antifa lie. Where did you get this explanation?

Most people caught shooting or committing arson were dressed as antifa but were in fact right wingers, largely boogaloos boys, who's plan is to commit crimes and blame antifa and BLM in hopes of sparking a civil (and race) war. Nearly 100% of shootings and fully 100% of attempted bombings fit that model.

Because someone wears a black facemask is no indication they support antifa. If they're armed, it's a near guarantee they are anti antifa.

1) the kid came from out of state with armed friends intent on confronting unarmed protesters with guns, you don't do this to protect a random gas station, you do this in hopes of shooting someone.
2) he sure didn't look like he had been sprayed as he ran from the murder he just committed, hands were on his weapon or above his head, not covering his face like a sprayed person.
3) white pedophile? Explain please....how would you know...because he had a 17 year old girlfriend?
4) white guy in a crowd of black men shouting "nigger"?! Doesn't sound right, and I haven't heard it in any videos, but are you saying that excuses the militia boy shooting him and others?
5) gunshot from Antifa?!? Now I know you're duped by right wing media. Antifa is pretty hard to identify unless you're dishonest and just call any black mask wearing person antifa. Also, what evidence is there of this single gunshot from the BLM crowd?
6) he was NOT running to police lines, he was running past them. He didn't stop at them and say "btw, I just shot at least 3 people and maybe more when I just shot into the crowd.", he just walked on by, still carrying the smoking gun.
7) again, where are you getting this info?

8 ) in short, a cowardly murderer who crossed state lines heavily armed who shouldn't have been there but went looking for trouble, started a fight, murdered another man, ran away armed pointing his gun at many uninvolved bystanders, shot and killed those trying to stop an armed murderer (should have emptied that glok if it existed) so he shot one, murdered another and fled the scene, the city, and the state without ever reporting that he had shot at least three people and killed at least two.

I hope he gets sentenced to life in prison, his dad too if they went together, he went heavily armed to a protest hoping to shoot some liberals, he did, now he wants to use the fact that some citizens tried to disarm and citizens arrest him after he shot someone in the head as an excuse for both murders and the other shootings?! And you buy it?!?

I'm so extremely disappointed you would buy such obvious self serving slant where the out of state multiple murderer who travelled armed looking for conflict is the victim.
That's totally asinine. I have much higher expectations for you.

Again, references for these claims please.

Confrontation in America

moonsammy says...

That was super interesting, particularly seeing SO much commonality between the protestors of the late 60's / early 70's and the last few years. Same shit, different century. I stopped watching a bit early as it seemed to have veered hard into "but of course everyone would be happy if only they Jesus'd" territory, but up to that point was excellent.

Police doing drive-bys on innocent protestors

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

bcglorf says...

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.

newtboy said:

Lol. Yeah, right, more liberal (my liberal friends think I'm pretty conservative, I say I'm old school republican... socially liberal and fiscally responsible, definitely not a neocon)...but do you feel the same about BLM activists disrupting other events, they should be allowed to stay and speak, holding their anti police violence signs high even at anti BLM rallies? Would they be allowed?

I agree, getting slightly physical with him was stooping ever so slightly closer to his ilk's level, although the extent they got physical was pretty minor, wasn't it?
Oh no...they grabbed his cardboard sign equivalent to an all lives matter sign at a BLM march. VIOLENCE!! Pay him one cent in restitution if he sues. It's not a civil rights case, it's what he was hoping for.

When a known white power spokesman shows up at a protest against a white power organization he's associated with it's international provocation. Don't be naive.

Removing him by having an older woman slowly walk into him until he's out of the middle of the protest doesn't bother me one bit. I don't call that violence, I call it the opposite. If they punched him, violently grabbed him (not his sign), kicked him, or actually assaulted him I might think differently, but I saw none of that.

If he wasn't doing this in the middle of a protest against his pro Nazi racist organization in an effort to disrupt and distract from the anti racist crowd, I might feel differently. He has every right to his voice, but not their soapbox. No one stopped him from standing outside the active protest area with any sign.

They grabbed his cardboard, he was so intimidated that he held on and went back into the angry mob with it instead of letting them steal it, then cries for years about how he was attacked violently by an entire mob that didn't touch him. He was poking the bull, got a snort, and cries he got both horns.

What I saw was a person who was identified as a well known racist spokesman intentionally provoking anti racists at an anti racist event and being calmly moved out of the crowd without anyone laying hands on him.

I did not see what the title and description describes at all.

It was his well known public support of Nazism being considered support for Nazism, not free speech.

It was not the disingenuous words on his sign they found unacceptable it was his public support of racist positions that were the unacceptable sentiments. (disingenuous because I assume he doesn't think blacks should have a right to openly join discussions of ideas, but his sign meant Nazi/white supremacist opinions matter and you must let them espouse them whenever and wherever they wish including at anti racist events or you're anti free speech...which I find to be hypocritical nonsense).

Free Speech Considered Support for Nazism

newtboy says...

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

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

What "defund the police" really means

bcglorf says...

The cause isn't united either.

Another part of the problem is you have a lot of people like @newtboy who really DO mean defund the police by the dictionary definition. Those folks are mixed in with the protesters who mean 'reform' when they say 'defund'.

That's all to be expected though when you see the systematic failure of the national police force that is out there. When the number of bad actors in the force becomes too many, includes sheriffs and their deputies, and sees various police chiefs and police union leaders(not toe mention Presidents) defending the bad actors, the people that rise up in anger aren't going to be a uniform centrally organized entity.

As Dave Chapelle refers to it, these are the streets speaking for themselves. The public can't be expected to hold a single, uniform and documented solution that they are marching for. It is unfair to the point of dishonesty to try and discredit the protestors as a 'mob' because their calls for reform aren't consistent enough or well messaged enough. The presumably better educated, smarter professionals running the country(from the bottom to the top) are the one's whose job it is to find a good solution. More importantly, it's also their fault for failing to enact solutions to the problem before the public outrage hit the levels it has.

cloudballoon said:

The problem with "Defund the Police" is right there in the name, and its name only. It's understandable that those who lost hope on reforms felt the need to escalate into using the term "Defund."

But uninformed people that don't understand nuance nor care about policies and enforcement would likely judge that's extreme and leads to anarchy immediately, and dismiss its merits. And let's be honest, would you bet there're more informed people in the USA or uninformed ones? If there's ONE thing that USA does better than any other countries, it's politicizing the hell out of complex issues into sound bites. Pushing people into all-or-nothing For or Against camps. In the end, little gets done, but even more divisions & hate.

I watched on the news here in Canada (with its fair share of racial injustices in its policing not that far behind the USA, ) that the mayor of Toronto (our largest city in the country) picked up and used the term "Detask the Police"... I think that's a much better term to advance the cause.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon