About those peaceful antifa protests...

[CountDeMoney]

[viper37]

How many "lefitsts" according to your capacious definition, killed anyone in a politically motivated attack in the last five years?

https://www.csdconstruction.qc.ca/deux-scaphandriers-se-font-couper-loxygene/
Almost killed two by cutting the divers' oxygen supply.

100 dead in Venuzeula

The Human cost of the Cuban revolution

That does not prevent people to cheer for Maduro or the Cuban regime.  Back in the 60s and 70s, we had a lot of marxists teachers and vocal supporters.  That was freedom of speech.  Even if it was distateful.

But right wing speech?  Someone dares questions border security?  Immigration quotas?  NAZIS!  HANG HIM!

Fuck that bullshit.

Freedom of speech is for everyone.  Not just the marxists and the wannabe revolutionaries.

There was a bomb threat yesterday at Complexe G.  Hint: it wasn't the far right.

The attack against the mosque in Quebec City left six persons dead, and eight injured. Last January. It's almost as if it never happened, in your world. 

And last year, 2 soldiers died, and a lot more could have died had his weapon not malfunctionned.  By your rationale, we should be rounding up muslims and beating them up for suspected radicalism.

That you treat it as a footnote, in your usual rush to indict "the left" is pretty fucking disgusting.

I never treated it as a footnote, and I posted about it when it happenned and I've always said it was horrible.  Using it as a political argument to shut down any kind of rational discussion about immigration quotas, integration of immigrants, respect of our borders, and lumping everyone who dares discuss issues like this as facists like you and Jacob are doing is disgusting.

One individual got radicalized by listening to US medias.  He received zero support or excuses from politicians or radio hosts or any public figure.  Yet, whenever leftist violence occurs, you all look away and pretend nothing happenned.

One anti immigration protests and it's a rise if extreme right wing movements according to Montreal media.  Maybe they should concentrate on the violent thugs that came from their neck of the woods to sack Quebec city?

Will you not condemn the violent actions on your side?  So far, you have refused to do so.  Jacob and Sbr were quite vocal in supporting such violence, Sbr was willing to pay to see a nazi killed, but you remain silent.

Again, what is so fucking hard in denouncing violence from all sides when it occurs?  Even the fucking Republicans condemned the terrorist attack of Charlottesville.  Even Ryan managed to do it.  But on the left side, when there's a  violent protest, it's total silence.  Or Donald Trump like comments.

[Oexmelin]

Once again, you mix everything.

I'll only say this. La Meute is not a group dedicated to "discussing legitimate issues". It's a collection of authoritarian xenophobes and racists. They have been for years, and they have used this pretext to normalize their speech and existence. Only recently, they intervened directly in that referendum down the project of the Muslim cemetery.

Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends? No. But if you cant see beyond your usual hatred, and confusion of everything "left", and transform that incident into support for groups like La Meute, you need to rethink your political definition. This is not mainstream right. This is racist far-right.

[11B4V]

Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends?

Khan Noonien Singh....? 

[The Brain]

My dearest Honeykitten,

I have arrived at the front to battle the leftist menace. I squeed with delight as I was given my very own torch for the night time rally! The day after I shall hold up the scared Sothern Cross as we battled the subhuman scum.

Thank you for packing my Capri Suns and Lunchables in my backpack. Those victuals will sustain my confederate fervor. Also, thank you for washing my anime body pillow.

Regards,

Col. Lettow

[viper37]

La Meute is not a group dedicated to "discussing legitimate issues". It's a collection of authoritarian xenophobes and racists.

Yes they are xenophobes and racists.  Rambo Gauthier is part of them.  So was another FTQ Construction guy now barred from my Facebook.

But for now, in public, they haven't overstepped the boundaries of what is acceptable.  No one has received death threats from anyone in La Meute as far as I can tell.  If they had, the Montreal media would have been all over it.

My opinion on the subject is close to that of Joseph Facal:
http://www.journaldequebec.com/2017/08/22/la-meute

they have committed no violent act.  They do act like an authoritarian group, but that is no different from the hard left.
Something you still fail to grasp.  For fuck sake, cutting the oxygen supply of workers who refused to join in their illegal strike was not enough?  Did they actually need to kill them before you realize that radicals exists both left and right of the spectrum?

Last week-end the antifa rented buses from Montreal to come to Quebec city and trash the town.  Did the organizers even tried to stop them?  Condemn them?  Nope.  Nothing.  Yet, just like Taillefer, you're asking from any moderate right wing person, any right wing party, anyone who ever questionned immigration quotas or the resources allocated to their integration to publicly cut ties with these people and denounce them as facists?  Should I find myself an atheist symbol to spit and step on too?

I am against the use of violence as a political tool.  I will promote dialogue, even heavy handed dialogue, but never violence or bullying.  I hate bullies, they are scumbags, and I will never give them my support, left or right.

So far, with dialogue, I've brought back 3 people from close to joining La Meute to staying in mainstream politics and toning down the anti-immigration rethoric.  That's a lot more than Jacob's antifa friends did over the week-end. In fact, I think they've turned away dozens of people from their pro-immigration speech.  Way to go.  Keep it going, and by the end of next year, the streets will be filled with blood just like you seem to dream of.

Only recently, they intervened directly in that referendum down the project of the Muslim cemetery.

That's Montreal media bs, again.  "Hillbillys reject tolerance" makes for great headlines and sells tons of copy.

Rather than going in a long tirade, I'll give you another opinion, supported by facts, written by one of your colleagues, Carl Pépin:

Politique québécoise. Projet avorté d'un cimetière musulman à Saint-Apollinaire.

Mon plaidoyer sur l'affaire.

D'emblée, il y a deux manières d'aborder la politique, ce que j'appelle la "chose publique". L'on peut le faire par l'émotion - normal, nous sommes humains - ou par la raison - la froide analyse des faits. J'y vais personnellement presque toujours en empruntant la seconde voie, dans la mesure où elle me permet de m'élever au-dessus du débat et comprendre réellement ce qui se passe et quelles sont les prétentions de tout un chacun dans les dossiers que j'étudie.

Dans l'affaire du "défunt" projet de cimetière musulman de Saint-Appollinaire, le référendum tenu dimanche dernier a permis à une partie des gens directement concernés par l'affaire de s'exprimer démocratiquement. Ils ont rejeté le projet : le résultat, quoique serré, ne faisant aucun doute.

Cela étant, que s'est-il réellement passé? Ou plutôt, qu'allait-il réellement se produire? L'affaire qui nous intéresse tourne autour d'un changement dans le zonage d'un terrain d'environ 60 000 pieds carrés - pour vous donner une idée, une dimension moyenne de terrain de maison en ville varie de 5 000 à 10 000 pieds carrés - qui longe l'autoroute 20 à la hauteur de la municipalité. L'objectif du promoteur, nommément le Centre culturel islamique de Québec (CCIQ), consistait à acheter ce terrain qui n'était pas alors zoné "cimetière".

Si l'on remonte quelque peu dans la chronologie, l'on se rappellera que la communauté musulmane du Québec ne dispose pas de lieu de sépultures digne de ce nom dans la région de la Capitale Nationale. Ladite communauté a donc besoin d'un terrain, selon ce qu'elle prétend. Les administrateurs du CCIQ, avec l'accord des membres, entreprennent des démarches auprès de l'entreprise funéraire Harmonia, sise au 320, rue Laurier, Saint-Appollinaire. Ils y apprennent qu'un terrain relativement boisé serait disponible non loin de ses installations funéraires et qu'il serait même possible de disposer d'une option d'achat pour un second terrain qui permettrait, éventuellement, d'en doubler la superficie initiale.

Prise quelque peu au dépourvu, la municipalité n'entend pas a priori, du moins dans l'esprit de son maire, s'opposer au projet. En effet, si le promoteur obtient les permis et les autorisations nécessaires, il n'y aurait donc, en principe, aucun obstacle légal. De son côté, le maire Bernard Ouellet semble ouvert au projet, présume que son conseil municipal l'approuve, et affirme qu'une fois les vérifications légales faites - donc, celles-ci ne sont pas faites au moment où la CCIQ et Harmonia l'approchent en toute bonne foi -, le changement de zonage s'opérera en bonne et due forme.

En clair, il est raisonnable de penser que l'administration municipale n'entend pas s'opposer au projet. Il ne manquerait que les autorisations. Rappelons, d'autre part, que la valeur du terrain est estimée à environ 215 000$. Au strict plan des affaires, il s'agit d'une transaction entre la CCIQ et l'entreprise Harmonia. Parallèlement, l'entente conclue entre les parties prévoyait également qu'Harmonia, compte tenu probablement de son expertise en la matière, gère le site pour une période de dix ans.

Par ailleurs, il est important de mentionner que le projet ne relève pas uniquement que de la transaction foncière. Il y a également des paramètres environnementaux et logistiques propres à l'inhumation de corps et à la composition des sols. En clair, on n'érige pas un cimetière n'importe où. Certes, la municipalité dispose de certains pouvoirs en ces domaines, mais le gouvernement de la province de Québec, notamment par ses ministères de l'Environnement et des Affaires municipales, a aussi son mot à dire.

Je peux raisonnablement croire - en étant toutefois conscient que je nage quelque peu dans la présomption ici - que la firme Harmonia, qui, comme je l'évoquais, dispose assurément d'une expertise en la matière, était consciente des étapes légales à franchir avant de remettre les clés aux futurs propriétaires. De plus, il semble que le terrain convoité se trouve dans une zone qui n'est pas potentiellement conflictuelle en matière de zonage, puisqu'il réside loin du centre urbain, entre une zone agricole et une zone industrielle.

Or, c'est là que le bât blesse, où repose le nœud de l'affaire. Pourquoi? Parce que tous semblent tenir pour acquise et réglée la question du zonage. Or, c'est faux. Il faut soit re-zoner, soit mettre à jour (mettre à niveau) le zonage du terrain, terrain qui, d'ailleurs, devrait accueillir environ 1 500 sépultures. L'entreprise Harmonia est régulièrement pointée du doigt pour sa prétendue ignorance de cet important détail, soit pour ne pas avoir fait les vérifications d'usage. En tous les cas, sur le fond, il faut re-zoner.

Bref, les principaux acteurs - CCIQ, Harmonia et la municipalité - se trouvent confrontés à ce que disent (ou ne disent pas) les lois et règlements en vigueur, et ce, à différents paliers de gouvernements. Que disent finalement, tant dans la lettre que dans l'esprit, les lois et règlements? Qu'un changement de zonage est obligatoire.

L'implantation du futur cimetière musulman à Saint-Appollinaire ne saurait faire abstraction de l'impératif changement de zonage et, par-dessus tout, de l'obligation, pour la municipalité, de tenir un référendum sur la question. Conformément à la loi municipale, il semblerait que 49 électeurs soient éligibles à voter, car directement concernés puisqu'ils habitent à proximité des lieux. En vertu du respect de sa propre loi, et plus globalement par respect de la primauté du droit, la municipalité n'avait d'autre choix que de tenir ce référendum.

Ici, Mesdames et Messieurs, le nombre d'électeurs éligibles à voter n'a strictement aucune importance. Ce qui importe au premier chef est la primauté du droit et, de par l'aboutissement logique de l'application de ce même droit, la tenue d'un référendum.

Naturellement, l'on peut comprendre que certains soient déçus, voire outrés, par le résultat du référendum. Cependant, sur le fond, la loi a été respectée. À savoir maintenant sur quelles bases les partisans et les opposants au changement de zonage se sont exprimés, cela relève du domaine extra-judiciaire. Autrement dit, si les lois et règlements ne répondent plus aux exigences de temps et de lieux, alors il faut les modifier, les amender et ainsi de suite. La récente loi provinciale no 122 constitue un énième exemple en matière de gouvernance municipale.

C'est pour cela que je dis qu'au final, il faut faire bien attention avant de jeter des pierres aux acteurs de cette affaire. Les quolibets, les moqueries et les insultes fusent de toutes parts, mais ils ne règlent en rien les questions, fondamentales pourtant, de la place de la religion dans l'espace public ou encore de la séparation de ce qu'on appelait, d'après une formulation qui mériterait d'être actualisée, la "séparation de l'Église et de l'État". Sur ce point, je laisse aux philosophes et aux sociologues le soin d'en discourir.

Je serais toutefois tenté d'en conclure qu'on a placé 49 personnes dans une situation impossible, comme si, à elles seules et sans le concours de ses dirigeants, elles avaient à décider de la conscience morale du Québec.

Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends? No.

That's pretty timid. That's less than you people asking from everyone on the right.

But if you cant see beyond your usual hatred, and confusion of everything "left", and transform that incident into support for groups like La Meute, you need to rethink your political definition. This is not mainstream right. This is racist far-right.

So far, La Meute has done nothing wrong.  Everything has been done within the limits of the law.
I do not trust them.  I do not like the secrecy.  I do not like the organization where the "leaders" have absolute authority over everything.  It is certainly sectarian.

But so far, they have not opposed or attacked democracy.  They have not attacked free speech outside of their membership.  They have not promoted violence, they have not tolerated it from their members.  They have not advocated violence against any kind of group, be it leftist or muslim or haitians or jews.  They have not even called for deportation of anyone.  That's better than Denis Coderre, champion of multiculturalism so far...

Let me make it clear: I hate these far right groups, and nothing good will come of it.  But responding the way your antifa buddies did just makes them stronger and more popular.  Free speech is threatened in Canada, freedom of the press is declining, and that is not the act of radical right wingers for now.  Adding more violence like you and Jacob propose is not going to solve the problem of anti-immigration attitudes.  Sensible immigration policies, allocating necessary resource, ending this bullshit of religious accomodation for every radical out there will solve the problem.  Restrciting free speech is not going to convince the mainstream right to not support these groups.

Expressing fear of immigration or questionning immigration does not make you a facist in itself.  I do not agree with their views, but so long as they do not use violence or even hint at violence, they'll be better then the mainstream left always finding an excuse for violence by any group nominally on their side.

When they resort to violence or threat of violence the same way the antifa, the unions and everyone on the left does, I'll be the first to condemn. 

But long before that, they'll be knocked from their feet by either CSIS or the RCMP.  That's the big difference with the left, at least somebody will bother investigating and arresting them.  Good luck doing that with the FTQ or the antifas.  Singh has been freed this morning.  The city will not even dare accuse other antifas for fear of taking the side of La Meute.  So don't worry, they'll be back in force, again for another show down in our streets.  That might make you and Jacob happy.  Maybe they'll even kill someone next time, wich would have happenned if the police hadn't been there.  For fuck sake, there were kids there and they were throwing objects at them.

With your side, we get all lumped together.  It's "with us or against us".  That's really no better than La Meute.

[viper37]

Did this warrant the moronic violence by Singh and his friends?

Khan Noonien Singh....? 

his cousin:

[dps]

I am not entirely sure what the argument is.  While neo-Nazis are certainly undesirable, it is also highly undesirable to use violence to stop their marches or rallies.  Any violence used should be strictly for self-defence, or defence of others. 

Well, I agree with you and Valmy on this.  But some other posters seem to think that political violence is justified if it's by someone on their side of the ideological spectrum.

Everyone thinks that. They just draw the line in a different place.

I.e., I would support civil war in X circumstances.

Hell, supporting the status quo, which is upheld by the state's monopolization of violence is an endorsemnet of violence for political ends.

Have you even read some of the other posts in this thread?  If you do, I don't see how you can take the position that everyone agrees with the stance taken by Valmy and Mono.  Well, yes I can see how you can--you truly are a moron.

[Jacob]

I find the term "Antifa" annoying.  It's the kind of word that aggravates and alienates the average Joe America.  Sounds too much like "Intifada" or something else suspiciously furriner.

Yeah, it's not my favourite phrasing either, but it's the term being used.

Another article on the subject, once again unlikely to convince anyone

I ask him to respond to those who say that facing off against white supremacists only gives them the publicity they crave. "Those people got their wish on Friday night," he said, pointing out that, in the absence of antifa, torch-wielding marchers on the University of Virginia campus attacked a group of students and other activists holding a small, quiet counterdemonstration. (According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, a UVA employee who was injured while trying to protect students had a stroke shortly after the clash  and ended up in the ICU.) "They beat the shit out of them," Anderson said. "They called them 'niggers' and hit them with torches. Nobody came to their defense. There was actually a church full of people singing songs with Cornel West not that far away. That's what happens when you ignore them."

[viper37]

Yes the violence is totally justified.  Cops, journalists, passerbys, ennemy protestors, families, anyone with an heavy metal t-shirt, anyone with something that might look like a wolf is a fair target:
https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/

You can't take any chances with facists, they might be everywhere, even hiding in that stroller.

[Razgovory]

Yes the violence is totally justified.  Cops, journalists, passerbys, ennemy protestors, families, anyone with an heavy metal t-shirt, anyone with something that might look like a wolf is a fair target:
https://www.facebook.com/99media.org/videos/1459794050735150/

You can't take any chances with facists, they might be everywhere, even hiding in that stroller.

I'm sorry, but there was writing in French.  Don't want to go all Multicultural, do we?

[Josquius]

I find the term "Antifa" annoying.  It's the kind of word that aggravates and alienates the average Joe America.  Sounds too much like "Intifada" or something else suspiciously furriner.

Yeah, it's not my favourite phrasing either, but it's the term being used.

Another article on the subject, once again unlikely to convince anyone

I ask him to respond to those who say that facing off against white supremacists only gives them the publicity they crave. "Those people got their wish on Friday night," he said, pointing out that, in the absence of antifa, torch-wielding marchers on the University of Virginia campus attacked a group of students and other activists holding a small, quiet counterdemonstration. (According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, a UVA employee who was injured while trying to protect students had a stroke shortly after the clash  and ended up in the ICU.) "They beat the shit out of them," Anderson said. "They called them 'niggers' and hit them with torches. Nobody came to their defense. There was actually a church full of people singing songs with Cornel West not that far away. That's what happens when you ignore them."

Antifa just refers to the masked anarchist types there for a fight with the fascists right?
It's not the common term for all anti fascist protesters.

[The Brain]

Antifa just refers to the masked anarchist types there for a fight with the fascists right?
It's not the common term for all anti fascist protesters.

Correct.

[viper37]

I'm sorry, but there was writing in French.  Don't want to go all Multicultural, do we?

ah, the infamous speak white.  Never get tired of it.  Not.

[Eddie Teach]

Lots of white people speak in barbarian tongues, Quebeckers are not alone.