Anti-Nazi Riots

Post Reply New Topic

Emergency Declared After Anti-Nazi Riots
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/16/D8D8TDH05.html
By JOHN SEEWER
Associated Press Writer

Anti-nazi nazis eh?

Whilst I have every sympathy with the protestors' views, I feel that in this case the level of force they used was unjustified, and attacking local shops will not help their cause.

The police should not have protected the Nazi march though. These people have disgusting views, and I do feel that if they dare to announce them in public, they deserve stones being thrown at them.

I disagree with you completely, RobertN. What you are suggesting is also against the law in the US.

The police were right to protect the Nazi march. The Nazis should absolutely be able to announce their views in public. It is freedom of speech. That is part of the first amendment to the US Constitution. People can publicly protest or say whatever they want as long as they are not violent. Ideally, a person will always be protected even when their opinions differ from the majority of the people and the government.

It's sort of hypocritical to defend the Nazis when they were the reason that we went and attacked over in Europe for WWII. They killed millions of people. For freedom of speech, I think this case is different because Nazis back in WWII weren't respecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of possessions (John Locke stuff). There's just about a million and one ways to defend or criticize this event, so I can't concretely say that they should or shouldn't have been defended by the police, but in my opinion I think that it's somewhat hypocritical.

There has to be a limit to freedom of speech IMO - Nazi marches/rallies usually cause riots, what do the police expect? Its incitement. No platform for those who wish to deny the same rights to others.

If the police officers were protecting them, that means our tax dollars were going toward spreading the Neo-Nazi's filth to others and I do not appreciate that, freedom of speech or not. And why is it that when a group of black men get together spreading hate, they're called "gangs"? The Neo-Nazis promote the same thing, albiet the opposite side. They're just as much a gang as the Bloods and Crips, too so why the police protection at our expense?

If they want to practice their freedom of speech, they're welcome to do so, but they should do like black people did during the civil rights movement and face the opposition on their own instead of being covered by police escorts and being too cowardly to bully people on their own.

It's a slippery slope. The police can protect everyone or they can protect no one, because otherwise there wouldn't be any semblance of fairness. Who decides which groups are "worthy" of protection?

No, it's not right that the Neo-Nazis are protected by the police on their marches, but that sort of thing is an unavoidable side effect to preserving some very important freedoms. I'd rather have police attending every march instead of police attending only the marches that they agree with.

That was Nazi Germany. We are talking about Neo-Nazis, also known as the American Nazi Party or the National Socialist Party of America (there are some other groups as well). Their ideas are somewhat similar to those of the German Nazis, but the American Nazi Party is not the same group, and they did not kill millions of people by genocide.



If the group of black men spreading hate was a political party, then it wouldn't be called a gang. Neo-Nazis express hate, but they are members of organised political parties, not gangs. The government steps in when members of a party commit crimes, just like the government does with gangs.



I agree with every single word in ghotistix's post.

Where do you register to turn your gang into an official political party?

*sigh* I don't know, but the parties that Neo-Nazis belong to are official political parties of the United States.

Ok, Bec, why is it when us lefties go on marches for Human Rights or for Environmental issues, we get totally clobered by the authorities, not protected by them, eh??

Bush is a nazi himself, and he secretly has every sympathy with their views. Our marches, on the other hand, threaten to undermine corporate rule in America, so we are dealt with very harshly, even though most of the public agree with us.

Do you have any evidence for this?

Who cares? Bush is a dimwit. Defame him all you like for I care, it doesn't change the fact that he sucks.

I do actually. The Bush family had been doing very lucrative banking deals with Hitler during WW2, lending him money for his war effort and stuff like that.

I don't know about what goes on in the UK, but I have never heard of authorities clobbering people who go on marches for Environmental or Human Rights issues. In the US, other people who disagree with those issues will clobber the people doing the march. The authorities protect the marchers (or at least they are supposed to) as long as they are having a peaceful protest.

Just for the record, RobertN, I am one of 'us lefties' too.