Anti-Nazi Riots

Post Reply New Topic

I understand your sympathies RobertN, but I don't see how you can defend the extremist wing of the animal rights movement. People who desecrate the graves of guinea-pig farmers mothers are taking matters beyond reasonable protest. As regards economic sabotage, that is fact - whether you see it as justifiable depends on which side of the fence you sit. I am not arguing here in favour of the vivisection industry - I oppose animal testing - rather suggesting that if you firebomb those who you disagree with you are crossing a line.

Dont twist things to suit your agenda, and dont quote things i never wrote, all i was doing was pointing out what i thought is legal or not. There is something ironic about one person calling a whole race or group of people racist with every other post. I saw plenty of un-subtle racist posts from you nirtti_rachelle but was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because i dont stay where you are so dont know what it is like to live there but by accusing me of being racist for stating a moderate opinion while yourself sending in racist posts you have irked me slightly.

By far the most violent attacks in the US are black on white so why be hypocritical and call for tolerance one way and point out one side of the problem while ignoring those of the same race? I take it you want any black extremist groups banned and where disgusted that the idea of an all-black country or state in the US wasnt stopped from being aired and Mohammed Ali wasnt banned from preaching this and other hate speech like calling caucasians "white devils"? I was as annoyed by a world icon saying this as i am by the nazis wanting an all white state or country but it wouldnt be productive to ban any facist group, white or black imo because it would lead to the opposite of what is intended.

Last edited by eamonn on 23 Oct 2005, 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am not justifying vandalism. I am simply stating that protesting outside an animal laboratory or pharmaceutical company using placards does not qualify as sabatage. The police seem to view it as such and try to stop such protests. Why is it that when some big company is involved, we suddenly lose our right to protest??! !!

I regularly see protests about all sorts of things including big business so i dont think it's fair to say that we lose our right to protest when big business is involved.

/me mutters about McLibel... true, eamonn, but it's bloody difficult.

a quotation - attributed to Voltaire (although apparently, he never actually said it):

"I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."

that sums things up nicely, i feel.

Thr no2id protesters were arrested on suspicion, and so failed to get to the demo. The BBC has them as conspiracy to cause criminal damage, another report said they were arrested for conspiring to cause a breach of the peace.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/4228718.stm

I remember when we had a right to protest., ah the good old days.

Yes it you're right vetivert, it is easy to protest against big business using slogans but harder to point out some of the murkier goings on in big business without facing the full force of the ruling political elite and the best crack team of lawyers in the country. Basically there isnt one thing that shouldnt be allowed to be called for that doesnt advocate any use of violence. (unfortunately this can be hard to determine, thus why some in the bnp have been leading 'double-lives'.

Well if they police are entitled to arrest people of "suspicion of conspiracy to commit criminal damage" if there actually was one but i wonder are they going to release any evidence of it.

vivi, shouldn't that be "to my dying breath" rather than "to your death"? Not that I'm saying it doesn't work either way.

quite probably - i was in a rush. sorry

i'll edit it, so i don't look like a complete prat (for a change...)

edit: gods - there's about several squillion versions. i'll leave it as it is, and people can choose the version they like

Sorry, sometimes there things just seem to lodge.
A squillion versions? he must have had too much free time on his hands.

You know what? I'm going to be really nice to you. If I didn't, I'd definately have some choice words for you, my choiciest words I only dish out for special occassions. Did I say that the gangs where right too, huh, huh? And did I say I wanted hate groups banned, huh? No I didn't. I also said that the neo-Nazis are gangs too and shouldn't get police protection because, heck, do you think for a moment police officers would do that for gangs? And don't you dare twist my words just because you don't like what I say and come up calling me a racist. That is a personal attack, afterall, and not allowed in these forums, right Vertivert...riiighht?

And since you bought it up, let me ask you this...If you're positively against racism (you either are or not), why are you advocating a group of white supremists, and yes, you are advocating it by arguing about the legality of it yet in the same breath, hollering about Mohammed Ali when he was speaking at a time when black people didn't even have the right to eat in the same restaurants as whites nor were they consider full citizens of this country and had no voice? And did Ali not later change his views, anyway?

If you want to argue the right for a hate group who would like to see people like me gotten rid of as well as having a history of harrassment and terrorism toward blacks to have police protection, you better have another reason besides legality. Besides, I'll let you know that, until a few decades ago, it was perfectly "legal" to string black people up on trees, exclude us from white neighborhoods, harass us, deny us positions because of our race, make us use separate water fountains, restaurants, sit in the balcony at a theater, not be allowed to try on shoes before buying them, spray water from fire hydrants on people, including children who were peacefully protesting for civil rights, should I go on?

If my opposition against a group of thugs and those like them that advocate violence, hatred and racist idealogy, my audacity to not be a "good girl", "be polite and don't make waves" and dare to speak out against them is racism to you, oh freakin' well.

okaaaaay. have just read through all the posts referred to again.

nirrti-rachelle, i don't think eamonn was making a personal attack against you, but more against what he sees as racism going the other way - black towards white. i also don't think he's supporting racist groups, as he has spoken out against racism in other threads. i interpret his posts as being about not favouring one lot of fascists over another.

having said which...

eamonn - politically, all the "isms" are about power. therefore, they are generally defined as discrimination against a group (or member thereof) who is not in power. as power is mainly held in the hands of white, male, older, able-bodied, upper/middle class straight men (depending on where you are in the world, obviously), people from the "opposite" groups (a black, disabled, gay working class woman, for example) can't be accused of "isms", as, effectively, they don't have the power to make any real, significant and political difference. years ago, there was a differentiation between "racist" (white on black) and "racialist" (black on white). i don't know how useful that is, personally, and i'm not even sure if it still holds currency.

there's also the issue of backlash - after centuries of oppression or powerlessness, the almost automatic response is to become extreme in trying to redress the balance. hence the aggressiveness of some feminists, the black power group, some gay groups, etc. (you can see the same thing on this board with the anti-NT stance - understandable, but it won't work). positive discrimination is part of this - although i'm not sure how useful it is as an anti-racist strategy (people will always be resentful, and it can be tokenist an awful lot of the time), it does go a little way in highlighting the problem.

this means that individual or smaller scale instances of blacks speaking out against white, gay against straight, women against men etc., can be seen as a reverse of the "ism", and as racist, sexist, etc. in and of itself. in the broader picture, this is not so, although i can understand why people get angry about it: i was brought up in a multicultural environment, didn't understand the politics behind racism, and so did actually think my best friend (a black girl) had a chip on her shoulder and was racist herself, until i learned what it was all about. education, again, is the key.

hate groups of any colour, creed, sexuality, gender, etc. are wrong, end of. but suppressing them isn't the way to deal with them.

is that helpful?

Vivi
(as Mod).

Speaking out against neo-nazis isnt racist, there was just a few other posts thatb sounded a bit racist but again i havent lived your life and dont stay in the US so il presume you have a reason for saying them. I dont appreciate been made out to be racist, subconciously or not so i was pointing out that just about anyones words (including yours) can be put in a light that comes across as racist but you made me out to be racist first so am baffled as to why you see it as a personal attack when i insinuate the same thing back to you? Thats the worst thing about racism or criticism. A lot of people like to project problems outwards and say devisive things and critisize but it becomes wrong in their mind when they get this back.

You dont seem to be distinguishing between gangs and political parties. One of them has a legal right to exist, the other doesnt. Of course black political parties and pressure groups (including the devisive ones) have a right to go on marches with police protection. Granted there is some overlap between the racist groups and the gangs but unless a party is proved to be a direct gang doing legal activities you cant just shut it down. That goes for any racist group. I have had a couple of run ins with nazis due to my political beliefs in the past but i believe in civil liberties so think every group should be allowed a voice no matter how distasteful they are to the majority of us as long as they keep within the boundaries of the law. I have pointed out i dont believe in silencing any group. Id like to no now if you think black groups that advocate seperation should be banned as well?

Like ghotistix said one of the prices of living in a (semi/sometimes/kinda) free and tolerant society is that you have to put up with people having views thayt are very distasteful to most of us. Problems hidden and repressed have a habit of gaining momentum and exploding into a much bigger problem than it should otherwise. Problems out in the open are easier handled. I think the racist groups are doing a better job of combatting racism and stopping recruitment to their cause by just being them than banning them could. Racism is just a symptom of the wider human condition of fear, hate, and the need to feel we are better than everyone and reinforce and improve our position. We fear difference and are reasured by conformity. The best thing we can do to combat racism is make sure we arent a party to it amd so do our bit to make sure racism doesnt get a foothold in our minds or greater society as a whole. By calling people racist, (subconciously or otherwise) you are only going to alienate them towards yourself rather than help convince them of your arguments or ideas.

Vetivert, i have to disagree with you. Blacks can be racist, women can be sexist and Irish (or people of Irish descent) catholics can be bigoted towards protestant British protestant people despite them being on the recieving end for centuries. By making out any group has any right to be 'racialist' or 'reverse sexist' or that it isnt the same thing all this is doing is making the problem worse and is devisive and shows double standards rather than being inclusive. Most gay people, women and ethnic minorities are better off and hold more power than me so i dont see how i should take bigotry off of anyone just because white-man generally hapoens to be better off and more powerful. As an Englishwoman is it fair for me to expect you to allow me digs in without reply because of English wrongs here over the centuries? I think it is time we moved on and then we can live with each other peacefully.

Basically, humans have have a murky past and present and all groups in society are included in this. All i can hold people to account for is their actions and i expect the same courtesy back. After all as someone who says she is against all generalisations i would expect you to not condone any kind including those against white men.

It is true that the white men have had all the power and have abused that but unfortunately this is a human problem of control and power but this has happened to Ireland as well but if Ireland had taken over Britain and if blacks had won over white counrtries i doubt theyd handle it any difference. Everyone seems to have trouble admitting that as a human they are capable of evil or wrongdoing and certainly wont admit to wrongdoing. Im happy to just be treated as an equal in Britain despite past Irish and catholic suffering, why cant everyone else just be happy with that without continuing the problem by being racist/sexist/bigoted themselves?

Does anyone think being devisive and thinking bigotry by gays, blacks, women etc is actually helping combat the devisiveness the other way round? I would suggest these neo-nazis are benefitting in spirit and recruitment when people are being racist to white people just as white man conquerer has brought resentment towards themselves by being racist in the past and present. If everyone stops being a hypocrite and doesnt act devisive themselves im sure the problem will die out but i dont see that happening antime soon.

erm... that's what i was saying - sorry if i didn't make that clear.

black people can't be racist if they are not holding power. of course, various situations in parts of Africa, where a black leader orders genocide against a different ethnic group (i'm thinking of the Tutsis as an example here) are racist. the difference is in who holds the power.

your point about equality is spot on - i loathe it when any one group says they're better than another, and that includes radical, separatist feminists. apart from anything else, it's bad PR, quite frankly.

incidentally, you say you disagree with me, but i did say that the perspective i described was an historical, political view/definition and not my own. i don't necessarily agree with it to the letter, although i understand what it's saying, and sympathise with it, to a certain degree.