3 ms·
Answering these questions are difficult because the protests were against the police, and any admission of nuance lessens the passion against injustice. With le
by thinkingemote 6y ago
Answering these questions are difficult because the protests were against the police, and any admission of nuance lessens the passion against injustice. With less emotional investment comes less participation.
Questions:
Were these protests legal or during coronavirus effectively temporarily illegal?
Another question is, given a police precinct building was evacuated and set on fire during a protest, should those attending the protest expect to no surveillance. Or only if violence happens?
In the UK there are stronger hate speech laws. Most people in the UK would want the police to be surveiling the far right during their arguably less violent counter protests. Should they not be wanting this?
- unreal37 6y ago"In the UK there are stronger hate speech laws." The UK is an odd place, legally. Stronger laws against free speech yet looser laws around freedom of the press to do normally illegal things. It's a surveillance state with cameras on every street corner, yet a big advocate for protecting private data online. A nation of paradoxes.
- 0xdeadb00f 6y agoMaybe it's on purpose. This is a stretch but recall in 1984 where the ministry's slogans were all the direct opposite to what they really did, and how details about the past were always chopped and changed so no one could keep track.