Quote:
Originally Posted by bessiedog
A S D ..... were they violent?
Strangely enough, our country says you have the right to do and think what you want, so long as it does not affect the peace or disrupt society.
We allow Satanists to publicly worship Satan.
We allow Nazis to publicly march....
We allow Islamic fundamentalists to call our country evil as well I guess.
So long as they don’t disrupt-hurt our society.
I think we should challenge these extremist groups. Yup.
But (as the Cop was noting) there’s a time and a place.
.....
My point and the cops point is that there’s a time and a place to stand opposed .
I think the vigil was way wrong. I reject Islamic fundamentalism, satanism, nazism..... and manipulative journalism.
|
Sigh. Didn't even want to get into this one. Yet here I am gluttonously looking for a bit of punishment.
I agree with what you are saying, and yes Menzies was acting the fool. However, they weren't telling him to leave or stop doing what he was doing, they only told him to stop saying "terrorist". Now obviously it was causing issues, so they wanted him to stop to prevent a disruption of society. I'm not sure if Canada keeps a list of known terrorists, but if he is in fact on said list there should be no stopping the use of the word. Anyways; that's getting off topic.
OK, so imagine an activist group occupies Cabelas at hunting season and they get violent when anyone uses the words, "hunt, tag, license, prey, ammo, gun..." You get the point. Is it illegal for me to use those words as it would disrupt them. I totally disagree with Menzies tact, but the very idea of this does trouble me.
Where exactly is the time and place that the RCMP speaks of, and if these same people threaten disobedience does it then end that time and place?
Menzies and Blaze are definitely sensationalizing a ploy to purposely inflame a crowd; agreed. However, seeing this, any "anti" group can now weaponize this tactic to hinder the sharing of free thought or speech. That does bother me.
ASD's comment below actually makes sense and is more cogent than anything else said previously. He should've probably led with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A S D
The average citizen should never have to back up and shut up because a group may become violent. The peaceful or those that wish to debate loose their abilities to exercise their civil liberties because the protester's threaten to become violent? That bothers me. I think the gov't and legal industry has got that wrong.
Should the government force us to shut up because a group might get violent? In the end our system starts to fail. All that has to happen for a group to take power or push their agenda is to threaten violence?
It is up to the group to show control and respect others who question their belief. Was Menzies being a little too in your face, I think so. And yes, I could see he was stirring the pot.
And no, I am not a "them vs us person". I think you are right in identifying that as a major problem in society right now.
If you take time, you will see I follow nobody but try my best to make sense of what is happening myself. I try to see a situation or problem from several points of view. Then do my best to devlop an accurate view. I believe that if I'm wrong, I best change my view. Winning a debate if I'm wrong does not make me right.
In the end, I think that nobody should have their freedom curtailed because a group may become violent. The group threatening violence must obey the law.
No I am not being maipulated. I can see what is going on. I'm not stupid. Other people on this message board can reason, not just you.
|