Lebanon voted against their fascists; Britain elected a few
 

Well if that isn't a provocative title I don't know what is, and finally the Brits get to enjoy ? the Politics section again.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah lost. The democratic "March 14" bloc won 71 seats, the Hezbollah's "March 8th" bloc, 57 seats. In particular Hezbollah was crushed in Beirut. This is a great result, fuck terrorists, and well done to the sensible Lebanese people.

In Britain, the Brit nationalist/white power/fascist British National Party won seats in the European parliament. Our British mates will have to explain the importance of this parliament and what it means that the BNP have won seats to it.

The Lebanese have always tried to be civilized. Sometimes they get overwhelmed by their larger more belligerent neighbors.

Fucking BNP.

They allow no non-white members. They believe in the 'voluntary repatriation' of 'non-indigenous' British people. Which is a softened down version of what the NF (from whom they sprang) stood for, which was the involuntary repatriation of all non-whites.

Would like to point out though, that this was a PR election (proportional representation). They actually polled fewer votes in this election than they did in the last European elections in 2004. Approximately 6000 fewer votes this time; but because turnout was very low that meant they were a higher proportion of the vote.

In Lebanon Hezbolla is still a larger armed force than their own military. They can't be controlled by the Lebanonese Army, and so far, not by any other external force. The Israelies basically fought them to a stalemate and blew the hell out of the civilian structures. I am not sure that even a majority of democratic or pro-Western politicos is going to have much of an effect on how business is done. They can't afford to piss off the guys with guns. Time will tell. I am pessimistic.

NOOO!! !! !! YOU??? I am shocked :haha:

I said to Mum, "Typical that as the US leans slightly to the Left, the rest of the world heads to the Right." But then your Left is further Right than our Right on many issues!

The BNP will do fuck all in Brussels.
There's only 2 of them, and I doubt they'll be interested in talking to any johnny foreigners. They'll probably do what UKIP do, take the money and claim their lack of any work at all is a moral stance for wanting Britain out of Europe.

You're kidding. There is actually a racist party there where people get elected? WTF?

The liberals in power here are mostly pussies. Like, we just won an election by a freaking landslide, and Obama is STILL having trouble getting his agenda passed, because he's trying too hard to please the people who LOST. Pussy.

And you're right. Many of our "lefties" aren't left at all. They are center. It's lonely being a liberal in this country. *sniff* And the radicals have taken over the republican party. Pity. So the ones who are the least in number still have the most power. It sux.

Yes. Their rules state that only indigenous white britons can join. They believe in 'voluntary' repatriation of non-indigenous people and I believe they want 'peace walls' (like in Northern Ireland duringthe troubles) to separate those who don't want to go 'back' from us whiteys.

They are generally very careful about how racist their material is. There are laws about inciting racial hatred. Occasionally they breach them and one of them is prosecuted. They also have a 'youth' movement., Yep, with camps and education programmes and all.

Theyre actually a softened down version of the old National Front party. And one of the new MEPs was prosecuted for holocaust denial (as indeed was their leader, Griffin) and racist violence.

I wish we had a law like that. We have had 3 hate killings over the past few weeks. One was an abortion doctor, one was a military recruiter, and one was a guard at the Holocaust Museum. IMO the perpetrators are domestic terrorists and should be treated as such.

It's funny too, because a couple of months ago Janet Napolitano issued a DHS report that rightwing extremism and hate crimes were likely to rise after the historic election of our first black president. She was reamed for that, and what has happened? We have had one of only three doctors who perform late-term abortions murdered, gunned down while at church. Now that clinic has closed. If that isn't domestic terrorism, I don't what is. We also had that racist open fire at the Holocaust Museum. Another example of right wing extremism gone wild. Yet no one who reamed Napolitano has come forward and apologized for their misjudgement of her apparent prescience.

There are many people who contributed to the death of that doctor, and Bill O'Reilly is certainly one of them. I wish they would throw his ass in jail for inciting a murder.

Sugar - I dislike the term terrorist myself - there are murderers, people who fund murderers, people who support murderers, people who shake hands with murderers (I mean you, Bill Clinton) oh and more murderers. Some of them look like us, sound like us, were born in the same country as us, have the same religions as us. When they start the killing, they are not us.

We've recently had a resurgence of murders in Northern Ireland.
Luckily, 9/11 soured most Americans on sectarian killings, so they have no support over there either. And the Church seems to have backed off too. No matter how righteous the cause, sane and decent people realise it's all killing in the end.

May it happen for you.

Well put SG. Virtually NO ONE agrees with the murder of Dr. Tiller, but if one recognizes that some people viewed Dr. Tiller as a murderer of innocent unborn children.

I have many thoughts about your post sugar, but I'll just say I noticed you didn't mention anything about the recruiter that was killed though. Was that because it wasn't a right wing extremist who killed him?

And Bill O'Reilly is guilty of inciting a murder? GTFOH.

Classic, if you are talking about sugarpop, read the post again. I was actually impressed that she included the recruiter.

Yes she mentioned him. My point was that she elaborated on the other two and ignored the recruiter. Most likely because it would cause her to admit their are extremists in both parties.

I did mention the recruiter, but I didn't mention him after talking about the HSD brief that was leaked because I don't think he was a right wing extremist, and the brief was about hate crimes going up because of rightwing radicalism. He did commit a hate crime though. I suppose by definition he was also a terrorist. Killing an innocent person for political reasons. Killing a recruiter definitely is political in nature.

And a terrorist is someone who creates terror by committing crimes aimed at a specific purpose, usually political in nature. The radical arm of the pro-life movement certainly qualifies that definition. They have made abortion doctors extremely fearful. Many of them travel with security people and have bulletproof glass on their cars and in their clinics. Many doctors have quit performing abortions because of the violence. Pro-life radicals put doctors addresses on websites along with language aimed at inciting people to go kill them. Bill O'Reilly said over and over and over on his show Dr. Tiller was a "baby killer."

Regardless of what you think of abortion, it is LEGAL in this country. Dr. Tiller was one of only THREE doctors left in this country who would perform late term abortions, and he still performed them even though he had been shot in both arms in a previous attack by a rightwing, pro-life extremist. Now there are only two. So IF you are a woman, and you get pregnant, and you want the baby, but something happens late in the pregnancy and you need to terminate the pregnancy, good luck getting an abortion.

In fact, even regular abortion is sorely underserviced in this country. There are less than half the number of doctors there were back in the 70s. Some places you have to drive hundreds of miles to get an abortion. All of that is because of these radical assholes who feel they must force their views and beliefs on the rest of society. And they are succeeding. Because of terrorism.

The other guy who went to the Holocaust Museum was a fanatic, and also a terrorist. Go look at his writings. They are online somewhere. Any organized group that wants to do harm to a whole group of people because of political reasons is by definition a terrorist.

More than that since the inauguration (blog link, with collection of news links).

HOLY CRAP BATMAN! I had no idea there had been that many! I had completely forgotten about that nutcase who thought Obama was going to take his guns, so he killed those cops, but I don't remember hearing about the other ones. And that makes Napolitano's brief even more prescient. I wonder if anyone who spoke badly about her for that will apologize. Probably not.

1. Do we have figures detailing if and by how much "hate crime" rates have risen since Obama was inaugurated or elected? And are we going by the inauguration date or the election date?

2. Stats 101: Correlation does not mean causation. Just because ice cream sales are rising and so are drownings doesn't mean one influences the other. Summer coming around is the lurking variable. I have a hard time accepting such a broad cause/effect like that (Obama elected = more "hate crimes").

**Disclaimer: not a fan of the "hate crime" label to begin with. A murder is a murder and the perpetrator should be punished accordingly. Having this dubious label of "hate crime",and more strict punishments for them, I would argue does nothing to deter further crimes with racial, religious, socio-economic, etc. motivation.

I understand your point Bullitt, but I respectfully disagree. I think hate crimes are worse and much more dangerous to society as a whole. I also think some of those groups, like radical pro-life fanatics that incite people to kill abortion doctors and personnel should be classified as terrorist groups and treated as such. That means all those people spewing hate and calling for death should be treated just like an Islamic terrorist group because there is no difference. (Not all pro-lifers, just the radical ones.)

Murder is a crime against an individual. Hate crime is a crime against an individual and against the race/group they belong to

Great points Bullitt - similar to the FACT that more people that own dishwashers have car accidents.

The idea of hate crime rising since Obama's election is reasonable even if not proven. Many KKK members did vote for Obama for similar reasons.

Well he certainly wasn't endorsed by the KKK. Here
Crime rates rise in a bad economy and fall in better economic times. just sayin.

Murder is a crime, and threatening is a crime. Murder as a threat is two crimes, together called a hate crime.

I would say that a "Hate crime" is better defined as targeting a victim because of his or her membership in an identifiable group, most commonly, but not always racial.

I don't think it has anything to do with murder as a whole, nor as a threat. Nor do I believe it therefore becomes two crimes. A hate crime certainly need not be murder either.

True enough Classic. It isn't that it becomes two crimes. It's that the nature of the crime changes.

It doesn't have to be murder, but it is a threat to the other members of the group. It could be a threat via vandalism, assault, battery, murder, etc. Whatever the base crime is, it is compounded with the threat to the group.

It could even be threat via threat; threatening a group by threatening an individual.

There needn't be a threat either. just a malicious act against a group or individual because of his/her/their commonality, be it sex, race, religion whatever...

For me, it ceases to be just a crime against the individual and becomes a crime against wider society.

Of course it does Dana - Any rational decent person would agree with that.... even me

And if it is used as a political tool (like killing abortion doctors) it becomes a form of domestic terrorism.

*blinks* shit mark a calendar, me and Dave agreed!

C'mon Dani - we agree a lot more than you'd like to admit.

I guess I just don't "get it". To me, any crime is a crime against society as a whole because it is a destabilizing force that sends the message of "I'm going to do what I want, and how it harms anyone else is irrelevant to me". So in my mind, a person who kills because of religion like the abortion doctor murderer, and a person who kills because of revenge for say cheating on a lover, are equally wrong because the end result is the same: someone murdered and society as a whole is worse off for it. A person's actions that prove them to be unwilling to abide by the rules of "civilized society", murder in this case, can stem from a variety of causes like racism, greed, etc., but what it boils down to is that this person is a destabilizing/destructive force and needs to be removed from society. Whether the cause is racism, religion, money, or revenge it doesn't matter in my mind. The fact that a person was willing to kill over whatever the cause is what's truly sick to me and what should carry the most weight when it comes time to decide what to do with them.

Thats all true Bullitt and I agree. But to clqssify the crime - now thats what this is about. That way we can do studies and take surveys and compile data and create statistics and legislate and create laws and jobs and and and...

and eat a bowl of dicks?

and spend, spend, spend babyyyy

So then attack on the US was just mass murder. Daniel Perle's murder was just another murder. Why are we so upset ablout it then?

Because there's nothing "just" about it. Murder is a terribly destructive force in communities and should be dealt with swiftly and harshly in all circumstances. Lets say you line up two men against a wall with two shooters about to kill them. One shooter is a religious nutjob and the other a jilted lover. They both proceed to murder their victims. Should one be punished more harshly than the other? I argue no, they both committed the same heinous act and should both be held to the same standard of punishment. There is no such thing as "just another murder".

'just' mass murder? No. That attack was a crime against the entire American people. If, as they believe, they are at war, thne they are at the very least guilty of a warcrime.

I don't think labelling a murder a 'hate crime' should mean it is punished more harshly. Giving it that label merely recognises the subtle difference between a 'personal' crime and a crime against society. One crime is contained within itself. The other has the potential for wider implications (possibly leading to crimes against humanity such as happened in nazi Germany or Rwanda)

There is a difference even though the outcome and intent are the same. When you kill someone for cheating, they performed a personal act against you. If I did not want to be killed by this person, I would just not have to cheat on them. When you kill someone because of their identity, they did nothing against you. If I did not want to be killed by this person, I would have to change or hide my entire identity. That is the biggest factor in my opinion.


Classicman, Obama obviously wasn't endosed by the KKK but some members did vote for him. I was bored last year and looked at Stormfront and saw a HUGE controversy of some members supporting Obama. Their reasons were legitimate as well.

Obama being elected, in some respects, help the KKK in the same way that Bush's invasion of Iraq helped Al Qaeda. Since Obama got elected, KKK membership has shot up.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574...14-401,00.html

Well that is just sickening.

Its not surprising. It doesn't really matter though, the KKK has very little influence or power. Their reign is well over.

You make a good point/distinction there in regards to whether they performed a personal act against you or not, maybe I should have used a different example instead like killing someone for their car. To me what matters most is that the person is willing to kill period, whether it be for money or one less gay man in the world. The fact that they think they're above society and can do what they like, i.e. straight up murder someone, is more damaging in my mind than the racial or religious motivations behind the killing. Though I can see how racial or religious hatred can be a catalyst for tensions to run high enough that killings take place, and in that regard solving those differences is a high priority.

I saw a party election broadcast by the BNP leader Nick Griffin on the telly before the election, and it made me sick to see the guy actually being given airtime on national tv.

Someone in the Cabinet, can't remember who now, predicted a while ago that with the onset of recession there was a danger that fascism would rise in support, and it seems he was right.

The only crumb of comfort is that as far as I'm aware the European Parliament doesn't have much power, most of the decision making comes from the EU Commission in Brussels and ministers from member state governments.

A few years ago during the run up to an election, a friend of mine was delivering Hope not Hate leaflets in one of the BNP's target areas. The BNP bussed in a bunch of their activists from all over the country and rhings got nasty. Ended up with the police having to escort the Hope not Hate leafleters to safety.

There have been numerous incidents involving sudden unexpected beatings of leafletters.

In a speech to his activists, referring to their big push for the North a few years ago, Griffin said (I am paraphrasing, but I htink I get the quote almost right:

"The battle for the hearts and minds of the North will not be won at the ballot box. It will be won on the streets with boots and fists"

The purpose of the hate crime is not that the person thinks they are above the laws/beliefs of society, a hate crime is meant to hurt society, or are using crime to change it in a way they agree with. Their 'example' is the individual victim, but their target is society as a whole.
Yes when a person commits a personal crime, they hurt society as a whole as well, but that is not necessarily their purpose. I think purpose is important when a crime is committed. That is why their are differing levels of punishment for murder or other crimes. The 'purpose' indicates whether or not that person is repentant and able to be reabilitated.

Sounds like he's inciting violence against his opponents in order to scare up votes. Was he reprimanded for this kinda of hate-talk?
For me its a fine line to censor 'hate-talk' and freedom of speech. I believe in America the only type of speech that is punishable, is talk about overthrowing the government. Of course there are plenty of examples where the freedom violated on a regular basis.
Although I agree that the extremist groups often incite violence with lies and hate-speech, I don't want speech censored, even that. I can see how it could turn into overall censorship way too quick.

Which is, in itself, a threat against anyone else who shares that commonality.

semantics and a waste.

The problem is, some of these groups ARE forcing society to change, due to their acts. Abortion is legal in this country, but abortion services have gone down over the past 20-30 years because of the crimes some of these whackos commit. And that is a shame. And now another clinic has shut down, and there is one more doctor who isn't available to perform late-term abortions for people whose life might be danger, or who might have a serious problem if they give birth.

And when Janet Napolitano had the gall to say these crimes would be on the rise, she was reamed for saying it. Yet here they are, on the rise, and I haven't heard a SINGLE FUCKING APOLOGY from any of the rightwing politicos for making her apologize for saying something that has obviously come true. You know why, right? Because they actually WANT this shit to happen, because it furthers their political agenda to make abortion so difficult to get, that it simply won't be available, even though it remains legal. I'm shocked more people aren't upset about this, like seriously upset, and demanding something be done. Those organizations are domestic terrorist organizations, plain and simple, and they need to be shut down.

Exactly who are they?

The BNP's membership rules may make them prosecutable. I do hope so. It really shouldn't be acceptable to only allow white members of a political party. How can they possibly seek to serve as elected members given that such members are there to represent the whole of their constituency?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8114619.stm

Which is why, right, we gotta send all them forinners back where dey came from, right? Then, no problem, right? Youse got that ya leftie manc tart? :p

I understand the POV, but I'm a little dubious. The attack had very long tentacles but was it a crime against me? I don't think so. It was an attack first on the people and property directly impacted, then against a symbol of corporate capitalism. Is it possible that some on the right who fail to see the logic of hate crimes were more likely to feel personally attacked on 9/11? *shrug* It puts a different spin on the right's claim to individualism.

I had three friends who worked in the towers. One since 6th grade another I work with and a third I know from church.

Was this an attack on me personally? No, not really. But it affected me in a persona way indirectly. It was moreso an attack on us as a nation and on our beliefs. We are no longer protected, safe, untouchable....

The organizations that post personal information online about doctors who perform abortions, and incite to people to go murder them.

"...Yesterday, I explored the ties between Dr. James Patrick Johnston, a key member of the Amendment 48 campaign team, and some of the most virulent paramilitary antiabortion groups in the nation — the Army of God, Christian Gallery and Minutemen United. Johnston has written tracts for these groups that defend the murder of reproductive health clinic staff under ultraconservative interpretations of Biblical law.

In the definitive book, Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War, the authors detail the rise of Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League and the Army of God's Rev. Michael Bray — cohorts of Johnston's whom he has praised on his many anti-abortion Web sites and in whose protests he has participated. Bray wrote the how-to manual on clinic bombings and "defensible force" tactics and holds some of the most extreme views in the antiabortion movement...
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2...lames-colorado

People like THAT.

What floor were your beliefs on?