From my understanding it's a case-by-case basis. If there appear to be discriminatory or hateful motives behind the illegal act, like spray painting a swastika on a Jewish family's garage door, or beating up a gay guy outside of a gay bar because "god hates fags", then it's pretty clear cut. Other stuff is pretty well at the determination of the Crown counsel and investigating officers. Kind of like that "can't define porn but know it when I see it" thing. I have no idea about the pronoun misuse, but I'm sure that if it was taken to an insane extreme and misrepresented as "just" pronoun misuse, it could happen. If you just called Pat a "him" instead of the "her" she was expecting, you wouldn't be sent off to the Hague.
Two issues off the top of my head here: One, I think we should all be uncomfortable giving those agencies that type of power and then just assuming they'll use it properly. Two, unfortunately asking the FBI to monitor racism is something like asking the the fox to monitor the henhouse. I don't think any of those agencies are inherently racist but the historical precedent they've set is not a good one, and I'd be very leery of how much power we cede there. See: Cointelpro. Collectivist action is messy and sometimes violent and uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it's not important or doesn't work.
So what about the protester that ran over the counter-protester? Can he not use the same logic around violence? "sorry, these things get violent and uncomfortable, but work", so it therefore should be allowed? Or is it only acceptable when it's on your side? Where is the line that delineates acceptable vs non-acceptable violence? Is a punch OK? A broken arm? What about a blind eye due to something being thrown? Or burns due to trying to burn a flag? At what point do we stop turning a blind eye to illegal violence? Or do you think that anyone resorting to violence, on any side, should be held to account for it? (Personally, that's my stance). I think that any protesting should be allowed until such time as it crosses the Public Safety line. If things get violent, then I think they're doing it wrong, and it has to stop. Violence begets violence, unless you wipe the other side out. I also think that if there is a continuing pattern of violence at certain protests, like the one in Charlottesville, then don't allow them. I think the vast majority of Westborough Baptist Church counter protests are an example of how to do it. Show up, mock, ridicule, but there's no violence. This is mostly a result of the WBC turning violence against them into a revenue stream, so people have learned, but there is no such restraint in protests like happened in Charlottesville. Other such protests and counter protests are being shut down due to the (what I consider reasonable) expectation of escalating violence. It's a tough thing... how do you stop something that is morally repugnant, yet legal? Again, I fall back to the stance of "make it illegal"... just be damned careful about how you define what is illegal, because at the end of the day, every option you have has its own slippery slope, and there is no clear path.
Total pivot: Van attack in Barcelona. It's really starting to look like the car attack and/or Mumbai style run-and-gun is emerging as the easiest and most impactful method of attack for terrorists of various stripes. Doesn't require bomb making knowledge or materials that show up on watchlists, and if you're in a country where guns are easily available, the run-and-gun won't throw up flags until you start firing either.
To me, THIS is how you counter-protest: Candlelight vigil at the same place as the "tiki torch parade": People lining up to turn themselves in to the police for toppling the monument in Charlottesville: Much better than going out and picking a fight with the protesters, in my opinion.
I find that little bitch to be quite hilarious. I imagine a good majority of them are like that when caught alone without their safety in numbers. It got a little too real for him. Reminds me of that scene in Tombstobe when Ike Clanton is running away from Wyatt Earp and tears his red sash off to save himself. But then goes right back to talking shit.
Late to the game here, been busy lately. In response to Net's post, I'm kind of with the ACLU on the matter of free speech, and in the words of South Park, either its all ok or none of it is. Figuring out what is and isn't hate speech is a slippery slope. In order to maintain free speech we must tolerate hate speech no matter how vile. I also like how these Neo-Nazi's try to look intimidating but when they're outnumbered and not in their little group they go running to the cops, a group which they supposedly despise don't trust and would disband, for help.
So my hometown area of Gettysburg had to answer the question of whether the Confederate monuments on the battlefield are going to be removed, and supposedly there hasn't really been any call for them to go. However, all the headlines are written as if there has been - "Gettysburg stands firm," or "monuments are here to stay" Let me say that I am not taking a side or arguing any position for or against - I'm just saying what I think will eventually happen, which is people will start calling for the monuments to be removed. When I hear people talk about the battlefield monuments, they usually say "well that's different, a battlefield is like a museum and it's there to educate you about what happened." Yeah, Gettysburg has signs all over explaining what was happening each day. But the monuments are there as memorials to the specific military units, most erected by surviving veterans or relatives. And the larger monuments are for each state, honoring those that fought. They briefly explain the troop movements, and list those killed or wounded, but they are primarily their as a memorial to honor them for their service. Also, a number of these monuments that honor confederate soldiers were erected in the 1960's, coincidentally during the time that civil rights was at the forefront of the national conversation. So I don't know where I stand on it, I just think it's eventually going to happen or be proposed, even on battlefields.
I do know that in CA a graveyard was pressured to remove a Confederate monument, over Confederate veteran's graves, on private property. Hell, Memphis is still going on about digging up Gen Forrest, I'm sure they'll so that someday. Right now they have to keep the grave site and statue under police guard.
Im trying to guess when they will start burning piles of Dukes Of Hazzard DVD's in baseball stadiums.
I think the civil war is a very important part of our country's history. What it was fought for is important. And we shouldn't try to erase who was involved and what they stood for. The difference is, I don't think we should celebrate what they stood for. I think a statue glorifying confederate figures as heroes should have no place in public display except for maybe a museum. But landmarks pointing out important locations and what went down at those locations shouldn't be removed. It's not the same type of war as one between two countries. I think the nuance is worth examining. Germany makes no memorials for Hitler as they shouldn't. It's a tremendously humiliating part of their history. Slavery is ours.
I agree. Every country has some bad shit in its past that should be owned, accepted, never forgotten, but at the same time it should not be celebrated.
I guess we'll see just how far down this rabbit hole the country is willing to go. Pastor Wants Presidents’ Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery Last night in Chicago someone burned a statue of Lincoln.
That's actually a very interesting article that talks about violent vs non-violent counter-protesting... worth a read.
That's why I expect that there's going to be more people calling for removal of some of the monuments at Gettysburg and other battlefields, as momentum builds in removing these other ones that are in public squares. For example, here's the writing on the monument for the 4th Alabama Infantry: And here's the writing on the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument: Or the Mississippi State Monument: I can see monuments like the first one falling under the description of "landmarks pointing out important locations and what went down." The last two, not so much. At some point, there's going to be a conversation about what to do with them, and I think it'll sooner than the National Park Service thinks.