Three people were stabbed and 13 others were arrested when a California Ku Klux Klan rally erupted into clashes with counter-protesters yesterday.

Police believe the fight began when six KKK members arrived at the protest site in Anaheim and were attacked by counter-protesters, one of whom was purportedly armed with a wooden plank.

The initial assault led to a retaliatory attack in which a counter-protester was stabbed, and then spiralled into a number of smaller fights, investigators believe.




All three stabbing victims – one of whom was critically injured – have been identified as counter-protesters.

A number of KKK members received injuries ranging from “minor to significant”, police said, including two KKK members who were stomped on by the crowd.

Six KKK members and seven counter-protesters have been arrested.

Counter-protester are also believed to have smashed the windows of a KKK member’s SUV.

Witness Brian Levin said he attempted to intervene, standing between the Klansmen and the crowd of counter-protesters in an attempt to stem the violence, even rescuing two Klansmen.

He claims that when he identified himself to one of them as a Jew, the man replied by thanking him.



Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:29pm:

Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech.

Or citing references.

Pick up your game, Homo.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:16pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo.

I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts.

Of course you can cite references, Homo.

Don't start lying with your new sock already.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Of course you can cite references, Homo. Don't start lying with your new sock already.

I can't cite links until I've got up a certain number of posts. Because you are such a ball licker you've never been banned and wouldn't know this.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Of course you can cite references, Homo. Don't start lying with your new sock already. I can't cite links until I've got up a certain number of posts. Because you are such a ball licker you've never been banned and wouldn't know this.

Surely you can just type:

'Pickering's Post, 28 Feb 2016', for example.

Is that too hard?

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Of course you can cite references, Homo. Don't start lying with your new sock already. I can't cite links until I've got up a certain number of posts. Because you are such a ball licker you've never been banned and wouldn't know this. Surely you can just type: 'Pickering's Post, 28 Feb 2016', for example. Is that too hard?

why?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:26pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Of course you can cite references, Homo. Don't start lying with your new sock already. I can't cite links until I've got up a certain number of posts. Because you are such a ball licker you've never been banned and wouldn't know this. Surely you can just type: 'Pickering's Post, 28 Feb 2016', for example. Is that too hard? why?

Otherwise, it looks like you are plagiarising.

In fact, without any sort of reference for you OP, I'm calling you a plagiarist, Homo.

My hands are tied.

greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:23pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:16pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:29pm: Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Or citing references. Pick up your game, Homo. I'm not allowed to Pecca. Post up the link for me if you have the guts. Of course you can cite references, Homo. Don't start lying with your new sock already. I can't cite links until I've got up a certain number of posts. Because you are such a ball licker you've never been banned and wouldn't know this. Surely you can just type: 'Pickering's Post, 28 Feb 2016', for example. Is that too hard? why? Otherwise, it looks like you are plagiarising. In fact, without any sort of reference for you OP, I'm calling you a plagiarist, Homo. My hands are tied.

Think what you want. It's a big story at the moment that anybody can find info on. You are making a story about nothing. In fact you are acting like sheila with her pants pulled down.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:30pm:

Think what you want. It's a big story at the moment that anybody can find info on.

You need to indicate (in some way) that they are not your own words.

Otherwise, you're a plagiarist.

How long will this sock last, Homo?

In 'murica, unless someone gets shot, it's not a real blue!

Is this incident or incidents really worthy of our interest?

issuevoter wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:39pm:

Is this incident or incidents really worthy of our interest?

Maybe. Just another day in capitalist greedy corporate America.

Issue voter, i'll make sure I run a topic past you for your approval before I post. Thanks for your input champ.

issuevoter wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:39pm:

Is this incident or incidents really worthy of our interest?

The OP is a long time supporter of the KKK (as well as a plagiarist).

As a fellow racist, he doesn't like to see the Klan members treated in this manner.

But no, it's not worthy of our interest.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:29pm:

Three people were stabbed and 13 others were arrested when a California Ku Klux Klan rally erupted into clashes with counter-protesters yesterday. Police believe the fight began when six KKK members arrived at the protest site in Anaheim and were attacked by counter-protesters, one of whom was purportedly armed with a wooden plank. The initial assault led to a retaliatory attack in which a counter-protester was stabbed, and then spiralled into a number of smaller fights, investigators believe. All three stabbing victims – one of whom was critically injured – have been identified as counter-protesters. A number of KKK members received injuries ranging from “minor to significant”, police said, including two KKK members who were stomped on by the crowd. Six KKK members and seven counter-protesters have been arrested. Counter-protester are also believed to have smashed the windows of a KKK member’s SUV. Witness Brian Levin said he attempted to intervene, standing between the Klansmen and the crowd of counter-protesters in an attempt to stem the violence, even rescuing two Klansmen. He claims that when he identified himself to one of them as a Jew, the man replied by thanking him. Obviously somebody doesn't like freedom of speech.

Oh, I know, Homo. Fancy blacks and do-gooders criticizing the KKK. So mean.

FD should be along in a sec to defend them. FD believes in Freeeeeeedom.

Issue voter, Karnal, someone's posted something that doesn't pique OUR interest. How dare they infringe on OUR sensitivities on OUR social medial site? Should'nt OUR moderators apply OUR rules and have them banned off OUR Ozpolitics? That's why you are and always will be a ball licker, Pecker.

KKK is a organization / entity that supports racial segregation, racial superiority, and far right nationalism.  Of course there will be other extremist group on the opposite of the spectrum targeting against them.   This bit of news comes as no surprise. 

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 11:08am:

Issue voter, Karnal, someone's posted something that doesn't pique OUR interest. How dare they infringe on OUR sensitivities on OUR social medial site? Should'nt OUR moderators apply OUR rules and have them banned off OUR Ozpolitics? That's why you are and always will be a ball licker, Pecker.

Sorry, Homo, I don't understand the question.

Can you ask it again in language a Pakistani can understand? Pretend I'm your next door neighbour.

The interesting thing about this is the dweebs that came out to "counter protest" (read: attack what they deemed as soft targets) were genuinely shocked that they could come to harm. 

Carnal; the language I shall use is dit,dit,dit...dum,dum,dum.  Yes, I think I'll try English. Firstly, I wasn't asking a question, I was making a comment. The entire thread is about a group's right to demonstrate without being assaulted. Even if they are repulsive. If you're like Pecker (and I suspect you are) you'll undoubtedly be shaking your fist at the idea of someone supporting the KKK's right to hold a peaceful demonstration. If that's the case (and I suspect it is) then what does that REALLY say about your attitude towards freedom of speech. Of course, have all the freedom of speech you want as long as it conforms to our wishy-washy leftist hand-wringing. BTW, I wouldn't even to talk to the piece of camel's faeces from next door.

re Mr Hammer

I do not think the principle of Freedom of speech is at risk here.  The KKK were allowed to have the demonstration.   They are within their right to free speech.  However, because what they say is quiet extreme, and at some cases offensive to others, the others may retaliate and in this case physically.  So Freedom of speech also means that the KKK members must be prepared for the consequences of their speech. 

Now, the KKK members are well within their right to press charges for physical assault if they are able to identify their attackers, and if the police think there is a case to be presented to the judge. 

They didn't "say" anything - they were attacked as soon as they got out of their cars.

Not sure how the rally was publicised, but media outlets probably played a major role in inciting the violence, by publicising and sensationalising something which wouldn't usually attract much interest.  It's not uncommon behaviour by the media, who just wash their hands of it.

I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:00pm:

I wasn't asking a question, I was making a comment.

Ah.

So what's that funny little symbol at the end of your comment?

"Should'nt OUR moderators apply OUR rules and have them banned off OUR Ozpolitics?"

... wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:12pm:

They didn't "say" anything - they were attacked as soon as they got out of their cars. Not sure how the rally was publicised, but media outlets probably played a major role in inciting the violence, by publicising and sensationalising something which wouldn't usually attract much interest.  It's not uncommon behaviour by the media, who just wash their hands of it.

Perhaps they may not have 'said' something at that time, does not mean that they have not said something offensive before hand.   And the people there who were waiting for them, did so because the things that they have said in and past, rather than what is anticipated then. 

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:17pm:

I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow?

Depends what you mean by peaceful protests. 

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-24/gun-seized-ahead-of-reclaim-australia-rally/6644638 - guns seized from groups attending reclaim Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-investigate-kill-threats-against-councillor-stephen-jolly-20150802-giplc3.html - kill threats against councillor by extremists.

And in between, there is a bit of public roasting of pork, and also more times or not, I reckon the Reclaim Australia protesters holding their ground fighting back and harassing others as well.    It goes both ways when you have two groups of extremists in the same place + young men + alcohol.

tickleandrose wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 4:13pm:

... wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 2:12pm: They didn't "say" anything - they were attacked as soon as they got out of their cars. Not sure how the rally was publicised, but media outlets probably played a major role in inciting the violence, by publicising and sensationalising something which wouldn't usually attract much interest.  It's not uncommon behaviour by the media, who just wash their hands of it. Perhaps they may not have 'said' something at that time, does not mean that they have not said something offensive before hand.   And the people there who were waiting for them, did so because the things that they have said in and past, rather than what is anticipated then.

They were there, because the media publicised their little gathering with the intent of stirring up poo like this.

They got their bloodshed, now they just throw up their hands and say "who me? We're just reporting the news"

The Black Lives Matter movement is full of anti white racists and nobody bothers them when they chuck on a demo. If you don't like the people who are chucking on a demo then don't turn up. It's democracy at work.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:00pm:

Carnal; the language I shall use is dit,dit,dit...dum,dum,dum.  Yes, I think I'll try English. Firstly, I wasn't asking a question, I was making a comment. The entire thread is about a group's right to demonstrate without being assaulted. Even if they are repulsive. If you're like Pecker (and I suspect you are) you'll undoubtedly be shaking your fist at the idea of someone supporting the KKK's right to hold a peaceful demonstration. If that's the case (and I suspect it is) then what does that REALLY say about your attitude towards freedom of speech. Of course, have all the freedom of speech you want as long as it conforms to our wishy-washy leftist hand-wringing. BTW, I wouldn't even to talk to the piece of camel's faeces from next door.

I could be wrong, but I believe the KKK has been banned as a terrorist organization in some US states. Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 2:17pm:

I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow?

That depends. In most Australian states, you need permission to hold a protest demo, particularly if you're blocking streets. The police make a judgment call whether such a protest is likely to attract violence.

Queensland has quite strict laws about gatherings. NSW is more liberal. The police didn't (or couldn't) stop the Cronulla riot, for example. They did, however, recommend that people stay home on that day.

I'm all for the freedom of assembly, but I've come to hate protests. They are inherently angry. This anger has nowhere to go. People always leave street protests disappointed. Such anger and disappointment does not necessarily translate into political action. I can't think of anything worse than marching down George Street chanting slogans in unison. Hey hey, ho ho...

It might be different when people have no other way to express their discontent. The Arab Spring centred around a number of key protests in city centres, and they had the effect of removing governments.

The most instrumental demonstrations, of course, were the US civil rights marches in the 1960s. They had such an impact, LBJ begged Martin Luther King to stop the marches. The result of this was blacks getting the vote and the end of segregation.

The KKK can hardly be compared to this. Most members insist on anonymity. Their platform is a racially "pure" America. They want blacks and Hispanics somehow removed from society. They hide their identities to evade the law and avoid social stigma. This can hardly be seen as freedom of expression.

The civil rights movement was about applying the US constitution to all members of society. The KKK want to abandon the constitution and the rule of law. The difference between these two movements is stark: one wants to uphold the law, the other wants to evade it.

Any reference to freedom of expression needs to take this into account.

Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 8:37am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 2:00pm: Carnal; the language I shall use is dit,dit,dit...dum,dum,dum.  Yes, I think I'll try English. Firstly, I wasn't asking a question, I was making a comment. The entire thread is about a group's right to demonstrate without being assaulted. Even if they are repulsive. If you're like Pecker (and I suspect you are) you'll undoubtedly be shaking your fist at the idea of someone supporting the KKK's right to hold a peaceful demonstration. If that's the case (and I suspect it is) then what does that REALLY say about your attitude towards freedom of speech. Of course, have all the freedom of speech you want as long as it conforms to our wishy-washy leftist hand-wringing. BTW, I wouldn't even to talk to the piece of camel's faeces from next door. I could be wrong, but I believe the KKK has been banned as a terrorist organization in some US states. Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?

You are wrong. Resorting to lying now candy ass.

Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 8:52am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 2:17pm: I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow? That depends. In most Australian states, you need permission to hold a protest demo, particularly if you're blocking streets. The police make a judgment call whether such a protest is likely to attract violence. Queensland has quite strict laws about gatherings. NSW is more liberal. The police didn't (or couldn't) stop the Cronulla riot, for example. They did, however, recommend that people stay home on that day. I'm all for the freedom of assembly, but I've come to hate protests. They are inherently angry. This anger has nowhere to go. People always leave street protests disappointed. Such anger and disappointment does not necessarily translate into political action. I can't think of anything worse than marching down George Street chanting slogans in unison. Hey hey, ho ho... It might be different when people have no other way to express their discontent. The Arab Spring centred around a number of key protests in city centres, and they had the effect of removing governments. The most instrumental demonstrations, of course, were the US civil rights marches in the 1960s. They had such an impact, LBJ begged Martin Luther King to stop the marches. The result of this was blacks getting the vote and the end of segregation. The KKK can hardly be compared to this. Most members insist on anonymity. Their platform is a racially "pure" America. They want blacks and Hispanics somehow removed from society. They hide their identities to evade the law and avoid social stigma. This can hardly be seen as freedom of expression. The civil rights movement was about applying the US constitution to all members of society. The KKK want to abandon the constitution and the rule of law. The difference between these two movements is stark: one wants to uphold the law, the other wants to evade it. Any reference to freedom of expression needs to take this into account.

So you don't like demos that turn nasty but you respected the American civil right demos that turned nasty???

We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo:

"Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?"

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:23am:

We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?"

The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:24am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing.

Are you a member of the Klan, Homo?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:25am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing. Are you a member of the Klan, Homo?

Aren't you getting off track. Where did that question come from? You moved from an American issue to Australia and now asking if I'm a member of the klan. Damage control obviously.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:27am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:25am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing. Are you a member of the Klan, Homo? Aren't you getting off track. Where did that question come from? You moved from an American issue to Australia and now asking if I'm a member of the klan. Damage control obviously.

A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, Homo.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:37am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:27am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:25am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing. Are you a member of the Klan, Homo? Aren't you getting off track. Where did that question come from? You moved from an American issue to Australia and now asking if I'm a member of the klan. Damage control obviously. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, Homo.

nope. are you a member of gay pride?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:39am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:37am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:27am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:25am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing. Are you a member of the Klan, Homo? Aren't you getting off track. Where did that question come from? You moved from an American issue to Australia and now asking if I'm a member of the klan. Damage control obviously. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, Homo. nope. are you a member of gay pride?

Nope.

I didn't realise one had to be a member.

Does Sir Booby man the phones?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:45am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:39am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:37am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:27am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:25am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:24am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing. Are you a member of the Klan, Homo? Aren't you getting off track. Where did that question come from? You moved from an American issue to Australia and now asking if I'm a member of the klan. Damage control obviously. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice, Homo. nope. are you a member of gay pride? Nope. I didn't realise one had to be a member. Does Sir Booby man the phones?

You do come across and girly and beta . It thought you were.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:21am:

Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 8:52am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 2:17pm: I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow? That depends. In most Australian states, you need permission to hold a protest demo, particularly if you're blocking streets. The police make a judgment call whether such a protest is likely to attract violence. Queensland has quite strict laws about gatherings. NSW is more liberal. The police didn't (or couldn't) stop the Cronulla riot, for example. They did, however, recommend that people stay home on that day. I'm all for the freedom of assembly, but I've come to hate protests. They are inherently angry. This anger has nowhere to go. People always leave street protests disappointed. Such anger and disappointment does not necessarily translate into political action. I can't think of anything worse than marching down George Street chanting slogans in unison. Hey hey, ho ho... It might be different when people have no other way to express their discontent. The Arab Spring centred around a number of key protests in city centres, and they had the effect of removing governments. The most instrumental demonstrations, of course, were the US civil rights marches in the 1960s. They had such an impact, LBJ begged Martin Luther King to stop the marches. The result of this was blacks getting the vote and the end of segregation. The KKK can hardly be compared to this. Most members insist on anonymity. Their platform is a racially "pure" America. They want blacks and Hispanics somehow removed from society. They hide their identities to evade the law and avoid social stigma. This can hardly be seen as freedom of expression. The civil rights movement was about applying the US constitution to all members of society. The KKK want to abandon the constitution and the rule of law. The difference between these two movements is stark: one wants to uphold the law, the other wants to evade it. Any reference to freedom of expression needs to take this into account. So you don't like demos that turn nasty but you respected the American civil right demos that turned nasty???

No, I don't like demos at all. The whole group-think thing does my head in. Demos are a tool. They work for some things, but not others. The KKK does not do demos - a demo is a popular protest, and for this you need to reveal your identity. A demonstration is a way of displaying your public solidarity with a cause.

The KKK meet in private and keep their identities hidden. They aren't interested in freedom of expression. They promote violence. They have a history of lynchings.

The American civil rights demos turned nasty because police in places like Alabama went in with truncheons. Martin Luther King was successful in turning these marches into peaceful forms of protest. He was inspired by Gandhi.

There's your dichotomy, Homo: peaceful, non-violent street marches versus cross-burnings and lynchings. I'm explaining the bleedingly obvious to you so that we can be in no doubt that you understand this. If you want me to clarify anything, please ask.

Otherwise, I'll be going back to speaking in Pakistani.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 9:24am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:23am: We didn't see an answer to this question, Homo: "Do you uphold the right of Al Qaida or ISIS holding demonstrations in Melbourne and Sydney?" The klan is a legal institution in the sates. Those two muslim groups are banned. Different thing.

Er...


Quote:

Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[31][32][33][34] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiring to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[35] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[36] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 10:25am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:21am: Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 8:52am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 2:17pm: I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow? That depends. In most Australian states, you need permission to hold a protest demo, particularly if you're blocking streets. The police make a judgment call whether such a protest is likely to attract violence. Queensland has quite strict laws about gatherings. NSW is more liberal. The police didn't (or couldn't) stop the Cronulla riot, for example. They did, however, recommend that people stay home on that day. I'm all for the freedom of assembly, but I've come to hate protests. They are inherently angry. This anger has nowhere to go. People always leave street protests disappointed. Such anger and disappointment does not necessarily translate into political action. I can't think of anything worse than marching down George Street chanting slogans in unison. Hey hey, ho ho... It might be different when people have no other way to express their discontent. The Arab Spring centred around a number of key protests in city centres, and they had the effect of removing governments. The most instrumental demonstrations, of course, were the US civil rights marches in the 1960s. They had such an impact, LBJ begged Martin Luther King to stop the marches. The result of this was blacks getting the vote and the end of segregation. The KKK can hardly be compared to this. Most members insist on anonymity. Their platform is a racially "pure" America. They want blacks and Hispanics somehow removed from society. They hide their identities to evade the law and avoid social stigma. This can hardly be seen as freedom of expression. The civil rights movement was about applying the US constitution to all members of society. The KKK want to abandon the constitution and the rule of law. The difference between these two movements is stark: one wants to uphold the law, the other wants to evade it. Any reference to freedom of expression needs to take this into account. So you don't like demos that turn nasty but you respected the American civil right demos that turned nasty??? No, I don't like demos at all. The whole group-think thing does my head in. Demos are a tool. They work for some things, but not others. The KKK does not do demos - a demo is a popular protest, and for this you need to reveal your identity. A demonstration is a way of displaying your public solidarity with a cause. The KKK meet in private and keep their identities hidden. They aren't interested in freedom of expression. They promote violence. They have a history of lynchings. The American civil rights demos turned nasty because police in places like Alabama went in with truncheons. Martin Luther King was successful in turning these marches into peaceful forms of protest. He was inspired by Gandhi. There's your dichotomy, Homo: peaceful, non-violent street marches versus cross-burnings and lynchings. I'm explaining the bleedingly obvious to you so that we can be in no doubt that you understand this. If you want me to clarify anything, please ask. Otherwise, I'll be going back to speaking in Pakistani.

The modern day klan demo is peaceful . Check them out on youtube. The ones who bung it on are the leftists and blacks. And back to the civil right movement , the Black Panthers were murdering and blowing things up. There was looting, violence, arson etc etc etc during that .Don't gloss over it. The Black Lives Matter movement is way more out of control than the Klan. Why no comment?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1^st, 2016 at 10:38am:

Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 10:25am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 9:21am: Melanias purse wrote on Mar 1st, 2016 at 8:52am: Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 2:17pm: I agree, Rose. At the same time, we have seen attacks on the Australia Patriot's Front or whatever they're called while they have held peaceful protests in Australia. When I write peaceful I don't mean agreeable or even justifiable. I mean an assembly of like minded people voicing their opinions in a legal and democratic way. Is that still legal? Or are the freedoms of speech and assembly now only reserved for those with 'acceptable' opinions? If that's the case how can we be sure we have freedom of speech and not just a licence to express what our betters allow? That depends. In most Australian states, you need permission to hold a protest demo, particularly if you're blocking streets. The police make a judgment call whether such a protest is likely to attract violence. Queensland has quite strict laws about gatherings. NSW is more liberal. The police didn't (or couldn't) stop the Cronulla riot, for example. They did, however, recommend that people stay home on that day. I'm all for the freedom of assembly, but I've come to hate protests. They are inherently angry. This anger has nowhere to go. People always leave street protests disappointed. Such anger and disappointment does not necessarily translate into political action. I can't think of anything worse than marching down George Street chanting slogans in unison. Hey hey, ho ho... It might be different when people have no other way to express their discontent. The Arab Spring centred around a number of key protests in city centres, and they had the effect of removing governments. The most instrumental demonstrations, of course, were the US civil rights marches in the 1960s. They had such an impact, LBJ begged Martin Luther King to stop the marches. The result of this was blacks getting the vote and the end of segregation. The KKK can hardly be compared to this. Most members insist on anonymity. Their platform is a racially "pure" America. They want blacks and Hispanics somehow removed from society. They hide their identities to evade the law and avoid social stigma. This can hardly be seen as freedom of expression. The civil rights movement was about applying the US constitution to all members of society. The KKK want to abandon the constitution and the rule of law. The difference between these two movements is stark: one wants to uphold the law, the other wants to evade it. Any reference to freedom of expression needs to take this into account. So you don't like demos that turn nasty but you respected the American civil right demos that turned nasty??? No, I don't like demos at all. The whole group-think thing does my head in. Demos are a tool. They work for some things, but not others. The KKK does not do demos - a demo is a popular protest, and for this you need to reveal your identity. A demonstration is a way of displaying your public solidarity with a cause. The KKK meet in private and keep their identities hidden. They aren't interested in freedom of expression. They promote violence. They have a history of lynchings. The American civil rights demos turned nasty because police in places like Alabama went in with truncheons. Martin Luther King was successful in turning these marches into peaceful forms of protest. He was inspired by Gandhi. There's your dichotomy, Homo: peaceful, non-violent street marches versus cross-burnings and lynchings. I'm explaining the bleedingly obvious to you so that we can be in no doubt that you understand this. If you want me to clarify anything, please ask. Otherwise, I'll be going back to speaking in Pakistani. The modern day klan demo is peaceful .

No it's not, it's just using more sophisticated PR methods.

"Check them out on Youtube".

And check them out on Wikipedia:


Quote:

Today, many sources classify the Klan as a "subversive or terrorist organization".[31][32][33][34] In April 1997, FBI agents arrested four members of the True Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Dallas for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiring to blow up a natural gas processing plant.[35] In 1999, the city council of Charleston, South Carolina passed a resolution declaring the Klan to be a terrorist organization.[36] In 2004, a professor at the University of Louisville began a campaign to have the Klan declared a terrorist organization in order to ban it from campus.[37]