EU Immigration Crisis Megathread

[Martinus]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The key question is whether her protest effectively prevented those other people from exercising their right or not.

Why is that key?

Protest isnt wrong because it is effective 

You are descending into the kind of relativist nonsense you seem to reject in the other thread.   I suppose whoever you are following these days hasn't really thought that through.

No, it's not about relativism. It's about rule of law. If you believe that everybody should have equal rights, then such rights should not be invalidated or restricted by violence - i.e. who has bigger numbers or shouts louder. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not just for popular opinions and popular people - in fact, it is the most important to uphold them for unpopular opinions and people.

Voltaire was not a post-modernist relativist when he said "I disagre with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say that". He is exactly the Englightenment type postmodernists and relativists are rallying against.

[The Brain]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

I'm not sure what your point is. There are many ways to protest that doesn't intrude on the rights of the other party.

[derspiess]

Every time I see that pic it looks like the dude in the foreground has a man bun.  Which would be pretty hilarious if it were actually there.

[crazy canuck]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

There are many ways to protest that doesn't intrude on the rights of the other party.

Perhaps, but that does not address my point.

[crazy canuck]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The key question is whether her protest effectively prevented those other people from exercising their right or not.

Why is that key?

Protest isnt wrong because it is effective 

You are descending into the kind of relativist nonsense you seem to reject in the other thread.   I suppose whoever you are following these days hasn't really thought that through.

No, it's not about relativism. It's about rule of law. If you believe that everybody should have equal rights, then such rights should not be invalidated or restricted by violence - i.e. who has bigger numbers or shouts louder. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are not just for popular opinions and popular people - in fact, it is the most important to uphold them for unpopular opinions and people.

Voltaire was not a post-modernist relativist when he said "I disagre with what you say but I will defend to death your right to say that". He is exactly the Englightenment type postmodernists and relativists are rallying against.

Oh my, trotting out the Rule of Law to prevent an effective protest that does no harm to anyone?  Neo Nazis indeed.

[The Brain]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

There are many ways to protest that doesn't intrude on the rights of the other party.

Perhaps, but that does not address my point.

Which is exactly what? That it's OK to take a dump on the law if it only hurts nasty people?

[Valmy]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The very purpose of giving them freedom to demonstrate is to allow people to peacefully protest them. Well ok not the very purpose but a very critical component. And last I checked freedom to assemble is a human right not something "approved by the state". Or maybe not. Do you not think that freedom to peacefully assemble is NOT a human right?

That is not say this was not an appropriate form of protest, I wasn't there.

[crazy canuck]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The very purpose of giving them freedom to demonstrate is to allow people to peacefully protest them. Well ok not the very purpose but a very critical component. And last I checked freedom to assemble is a human right not something "approved by the state". Or maybe not. Do you not think that freedom to peacefully assemble is NOT a human right?

That is not say this was not an appropriate form of protest, I wasn't there.

Not sure what tangent you are going on.  The comment I was responding to is that the neo nazis had a permit to march.  I agree with you that with that permission also comes the ability of others to peacefully protest that march.

[Martinus]

I think there may be a misunderstanding here (or CC is deliberately "misunderstanding" my position - and that of few other people).

I am fine with staging a counter-protest to a neonazi march - in fact I applaud someone for doing that (still, if they are at no risk of physical harm, I hesitate with calling them a hero) - as long as the manner of the protest is not such as to physically prevent the neonazis from marching.

Similarly, when someone whom I disagree with exercises their freedom of speech, it is perfectly fine to debate them, ask them questions, even ridicule them (within the rules of the debate). It is not fine, however, to scream or make noise meant to make it impossible for them to speak.

If this is a relativist and illogical position, then I give up.

[The Brain]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The very purpose of giving them freedom to demonstrate is to allow people to peacefully protest them. Well ok not the very purpose but a very critical component. And last I checked freedom to assemble is a human right not something "approved by the state". Or maybe not. Do you not think that freedom to peacefully assemble is NOT a human right?

That is not say this was not an appropriate form of protest, I wasn't there.

Not sure what tangent you are going on.  The comment I was responding to is that the neo nazis had a permit to march.  I agree with you that with that permission also comes the ability of others to peacefully protest that march.

I like the nice touch of throwing "peaceful" in there. "Peaceful" is certainly better than "violent", but it's not like it automatically makes something OK. Much illegal activity is peaceful.

[crazy canuck]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The very purpose of giving them freedom to demonstrate is to allow people to peacefully protest them. Well ok not the very purpose but a very critical component. And last I checked freedom to assemble is a human right not something "approved by the state". Or maybe not. Do you not think that freedom to peacefully assemble is NOT a human right?

That is not say this was not an appropriate form of protest, I wasn't there.

Not sure what tangent you are going on.  The comment I was responding to is that the neo nazis had a permit to march.  I agree with you that with that permission also comes the ability of others to peacefully protest that march.

I like the nice touch of throwing "peaceful" in there. "Peaceful" is certainly better than "violent", but it's not like it automatically makes something OK.

Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy.  If you take that away you get the kind of society the neo nazis want 

[The Brain]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The very purpose of giving them freedom to demonstrate is to allow people to peacefully protest them. Well ok not the very purpose but a very critical component. And last I checked freedom to assemble is a human right not something "approved by the state". Or maybe not. Do you not think that freedom to peacefully assemble is NOT a human right?

That is not say this was not an appropriate form of protest, I wasn't there.

Not sure what tangent you are going on.  The comment I was responding to is that the neo nazis had a permit to march.  I agree with you that with that permission also comes the ability of others to peacefully protest that march.

I like the nice touch of throwing "peaceful" in there. "Peaceful" is certainly better than "violent", but it's not like it automatically makes something OK.

Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy.  If you take that away you get the kind of society the neo nazis want 

If I were you I would think long and hard (giggle) about law and its purpose.

[crazy canuck]

I am fine with staging a counter-protest to a neonazi march - in fact I applaud someone for doing that (still, if they are at no risk of physical harm, I hesitate with calling them a hero) - as long as the manner of the protest is not such as to physically prevent the neonazis from marching.

How did one lone woman doing nothing more than standing still and holding up her hand "physically" prevent the march?

[crazy canuck]

AFAIK the demonstration had a permit to use that stretch of road at that time.

Sure, but that does not mean that people should not protest something that has been approved by the state.  In fact, that is often the very purpose of protest.

The very purpose of giving them freedom to demonstrate is to allow people to peacefully protest them. Well ok not the very purpose but a very critical component. And last I checked freedom to assemble is a human right not something "approved by the state". Or maybe not. Do you not think that freedom to peacefully assemble is NOT a human right?

That is not say this was not an appropriate form of protest, I wasn't there.

Not sure what tangent you are going on.  The comment I was responding to is that the neo nazis had a permit to march.  I agree with you that with that permission also comes the ability of others to peacefully protest that march.

I like the nice touch of throwing "peaceful" in there. "Peaceful" is certainly better than "violent", but it's not like it automatically makes something OK.

Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy.  If you take that away you get the kind of society the neo nazis want 

If I were you I would think long and hard (giggle) about law and its purpose.

Right back at you 

[Martinus]

I am fine with staging a counter-protest to a neonazi march - in fact I applaud someone for doing that (still, if they are at no risk of physical harm, I hesitate with calling them a hero) - as long as the manner of the protest is not such as to physically prevent the neonazis from marching.

How did one lone woman doing nothing more than standing still and holding up her hand "physically" prevent the march?

Again, this is the part I am unclear of. I have already said it twice. That is how the media friendly to her reported that, but I agree it seems incredible.