Society/Culture Can we please stop equating the risk posed by left wing extremists with that of right wing extremists?

Remove this Banner Ad

(Log in to remove this ad.)

GoldenSky

Premiership Player
Jun 6, 2006
4,590
1,502
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Here's classic left-wing extremism in action. Difference to most right-wing extremism is that it is actually by those in Government. Scary.


Hate crime bill: Hate talk in homes ‘must be prosecuted’

Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law, the justice secretary has said.

Journalists and theatre directors should also face the courts if their work is deemed to deliberately stoke up prejudice, Humza Yousaf said.
 

GoldenSky

Premiership Player
Jun 6, 2006
4,590
1,502
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Here's another example of what left-wing extremism causes: not only the terrorist attack itself, but the Government putting the fear of God into people to speak honestly and plainly.


Arena bomb inquiry: Steward who spotted Abedi looking suspicious hesitated because 'he feared being called racist'

A Showsec steward who spotted Manchester Arena bomber Salman Abedi acting suspiciously 15 minutes before he detonated his device told the inquiry into the atrocity he hesitated because he feared being branded a racist.

In his police statement, the inquiry heard Mr Lawler said: "I felt unsure about what to do. It’s very difficult to define a terrorist . For all I knew, he might have been an innocent young Asian male sitting on the steps. I did not want people to think that I was stereotyping him because of his race.

"He could have been an older brother waiting for his younger sister. He looked like he was dressed for travel in a train station. People would sit in that area often when they were waiting for trains.

"I was scared of being wrong and being branded a racist . If I ’d got it wrong then I would have got into trouble. It made me hesitant about what to do. I wanted to get it right and not to mess up by overreacting or judging someone by their race."
 

Chief

Elastico Gomez
Dec 1, 1999
89,786
64,783
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Here's classic left-wing extremism in action. Difference to most right-wing extremism is that it is actually by those in Government. Scary.


Hate crime bill: Hate talk in homes ‘must be prosecuted’

Conversations over the dinner table that incite hatred must be prosecuted under Scotland’s hate crime law, the justice secretary has said.

Journalists and theatre directors should also face the courts if their work is deemed to deliberately stoke up prejudice, Humza Yousaf said.
It’s paywalled so I can’t read the details.
 

Chief

Elastico Gomez
Dec 1, 1999
89,786
64,783
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Because of this, Mr Yousaf was forced to amend the legislation and change the controversial "stirring up" offences section which has been condemned by opponents.

It now means "stirring up offences" would be limited to “intent” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics and therefore prosecutions could only be brought in this respect.

- So it never happened, the democratic process stopped it from happening. Prosecution in the home wasn’t even a specific part of the bill.


During today’s session, Glasgow Tory MSP and Committee Convenor Adam Tomkins questioned the Scottish Justice Secretary on how you can commit an offence of public order in private.

It comes after Mr Yousaf suggested during the committee session that he would be in favour of the stirring up offences applying inside home dwellings.


Take a step back and read up on these thing before falling for click bait.
 

Mofra

Moderator
Dec 6, 2005
49,584
136,551
Footscray
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray, The Exers

Oath Keepers militia leader Stewart Rhodes said members of his militia will be at polling locations on Election Day to “protect” Trump voters during an appearance on far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ program.

After making that claim, Rhodes made a number of unhinged statements, including saying Oath Keepers would follow directives from President Donald Trump to take members of the “deep state” into custody and “do what we have to do,” that Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act before the election, that Oath Keepers will “be in range” of Washington D.C., to stop a “Benghazi-style” attack on the White House on election night, and that a war will have to be fought against Democrats on the West Coast who are “bought” by the Chinese government. Rhodes also hyped the possibility of a second civil war where his “battle-hardened” supporters kill the “street soldiers” and “command and control” of “the radical left.” He later claimed the United States is already in a civil war because “you have sitting politicians who are part of the enemy’s ranks.”
OP still valid.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
9,075
11,607
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham, Real Betis
Because of this, Mr Yousaf was forced to amend the legislation and change the controversial "stirring up" offences section which has been condemned by opponents.

It now means "stirring up offences" would be limited to “intent” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and variations in sex characteristics and therefore prosecutions could only be brought in this respect.

- So it never happened, the democratic process stopped it from happening. Prosecution in the home wasn’t even a specific part of the bill.


During today’s session, Glasgow Tory MSP and Committee Convenor Adam Tomkins questioned the Scottish Justice Secretary on how you can commit an offence of public order in private.

It comes after Mr Yousaf suggested during the committee session that he would be in favour of the stirring up offences applying inside home dwellings.


Take a step back and read up on these thing before falling for click bait.
Comprehension failure on your part. The amendment was to limit the categories that "stirring up" offences could be applied to but didn't change that it could still be applied for speech in your own home.

Section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986 includes an exception for behaviour in the home. The new legislation that would replace it doesn't.

Scottish Justice Secretary Humza Yousaf is still in favour of the new bill not having a defence for speech made in the home.
 

GoldenSky

Premiership Player
Jun 6, 2006
4,590
1,502
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
- So it never happened, the democratic process stopped it from happening. Prosecution in the home wasn’t even a specific part of the bill.
Hahahahaha, weakest reasoning ever - "democratic process stopped it from happening". WHY was it happening in the first place? Left wing extremism, that's why.

Take a step back and read up on these thing before falling for click bait.
Pfft not clickbait at all. It was an article in The Times. And it's all Scotland has been talking about in the last 24 hrs.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief

Elastico Gomez
Dec 1, 1999
89,786
64,783
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
Comprehension failure on your part. The amendment was to limit the categories that "stirring up" offences could be applied to but didn't change that it could still be applied for speech in your own home.
I see - it’s still about inciting people to hatred -> violence.

Not if you’re having one of your regular nights where you bark at the wife and kids about how the Sudanese gangs are taking over the city.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
9,075
11,607
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Oldham, West Ham, Real Betis
I see - it’s still about inciting people to hatred -> violence.

Not if you’re having one of your regular nights where you bark at the wife and kids about how the Sudanese gangs are taking over the city.
There's no mention of violence in the bill.

JK Rowling might be in trouble for telling her neighbour, over tea and biscuits, that women have vaginas.
 

Chief

Elastico Gomez
Dec 1, 1999
89,786
64,783
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
I think raging left-wingers prosecuting dinner time conversations in the home makes my mind up for me pretty simply, yes.

What, you're left with some doubt as to whether this is sane and normal??
It’s not even what is happening FFS.

I mean. Just take a look at yourself you shrill idiot.

On top of that you’re pretending that “teh eeeevil leeeft” are the only people who could EVER legislate against people’s freedoms.

It’s hilarious!

This is a bill being debated as per the democratic process.

Don’t get hooked in by the panic-merchants.
 

GoldenSky

Premiership Player
Jun 6, 2006
4,590
1,502
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
It’s not even what is happening FFS.

I mean. Just take a look at yourself you shrill idiot.

On top of that you’re pretending that “teh eeeevil leeeft” are the only people who could EVER legislate against people’s freedoms.

It’s hilarious!

This is a bill being debated as per the democratic process.

Don’t get hooked in by the panic-merchants.
Sorry the difference here is this is being done by a government usually described as "centre left/ progressive" especially on social issues etc. Now cf a government of a right-wing persuasion legislating in this way. It would definitely be described as "far-right". So how about we apply the same standards here and describe the SNP as a "far-left extremist" government?

Can you show me a right-wing government of an English speaking nation legislating against dinner time conversation in your own home?

Yes, you say it is being debated as per the democratic process - that's because there are parties and MSPs that are NOT far-left extremists involved.

I'm zeroing in on the SNP and their Minister here - not the entire Scottish legal system.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad