the locals homepage

The problem with most of this thread, I think, is that people are missing the point of the demonstration, or at least, the point for me, and many of the other activists present. It wasn't nearly so much about stopping his speech in particular, as it was about making white supremacists feel threatened and unwelcome. It was about showing racists that Halifax is a community where they will be confronted, physically, and where there will be no easy inroads. Free speech? I think free speech is important, but I don't believe there are any all-applicable absolutes. The thing is, we weren't there 'cos we give a fuck what he had to say - we were there to confront a piece of racist shit, and make sure that racists aren't able to get organized in our city. It's easy for white people to sit back, and talk about "free speech" on a message board, but how about when people start being targeted by racist violence?
As for the masks, the last time there was event like this, it was held at the Holiday Inn, neo-nazis were taking photos, and, you know what? Somebody did get the shit kicked out of them. You know what else? Yeah, we physically removed Jared Taylor from the room, which may have been crossing some legal lines. Letting Jared Taylor and his racist friends turn to the police for help is not a comforting prospect, so one more reason to keep our identities hidden. Finally, maybe the thought of being surrounded by an angry masked "mob" (though I don't feel that's exactly accurate - mobs don't have meetings to discuss and democratically agree on plans before carrying them out) will make some other racist think twice before trying to organize an event in Halifax.

Trotsky, I think that's the first thing you've said that I agree with 100%.

You can't spread tolerance with hate. That only spreads hate.

hence, the not-withstanding clause.

I support Trostsky's stance on this. While I have may have some moral issues over physical removal of the man, the people there did a service to the community.

And in my opinnion the main problem with this thread is that people don't recognize that freedom of speech is designed to protect people from having our charter rights infringed upon. It does not give people the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others.

This is far too commonly overlooked. This is the same kind of rubbish that lets people justify their "right" to oppose same-sex marriage.

Awesome.

If "the end justifies the means" were an acceptable moral principle, xTrotskyx might have a point.

I'm not a free-speech absolutist, but lingers on's remarks (which amount to "You have no right to disagree with me about rights") make me worry that Thought Police in hoodies and masks may someday be coming after me.

e.g.,

Dry your tears, all you Thomas Paines.

People do have a right to oppose same sex marriage. People have a right to oppose whatever the fuck they want. That's what makes a democracy great. Where would you draw the line on what can and can't be opposed?

Maybe at the point where someone opposes having black people in their country?

"The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end."

-Trotsky (the other one)

Maybe if he puts his words into action, yes. But for now they're harmless words. I disagree with his ideals as much as any rational human being, but hiding your face behind a sheet and using goon tactics to "make him feel threatened and unwanted in our city" reminds me of the tactics used by a certain other organization. Stooping to that level won't solve anything.

Yeah it will. It'll get rid of all the racists.

I doubt that.

I just seen this on CTV and honestly I most likely wouldn't have heard about it if it wasn't for the protest.

This leads me to believe that the protest in a way has brought him more media coverage then if they would have just sat in the audience and asked questions and shot him down that way.