3 ms·

> I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation. That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history.

> I said they have the duty to investigate, if there is suspicion of radicalisation. That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history. > in germany the economy ministre could not leave his ferry, because of aggressive protesters Do you have evidence? And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly? Again, the tools of oppression - 'law and order!'

lukan 3y ago
"That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history." Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete. "And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?" Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Not per se. What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power. > Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans. That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
  - lukan 3y ago
    "There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. " Yeah, because they do not bow to violence. "What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?" The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy. I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
      - lukan 3y ago
        Dude, I am arguing that violent people need to be investigated. Nothing more. Do you really debate that? I did not say in any word, a whole group needs to be locked down, because one stepped out of line. But if the group openly supports the violence of that one person - well then they invited further investigation to determine if there is more planned in secret. It is a grey area for sure and I am not a fan of police regulary overstepping those lines to stop some drunk nuts. But they do have to check, on whether the nuts are arming themself and getting more dangerous. How would you propose it should work? Ignoring it?
        wolverine876 3y ago
        > How would you propose it should work? Investigation itself is a politically, emotionally, and sometimes financially and socially damaging act, and can lead to oppression. 1) Don't draw the line at zero violence. Law enforcement overlooks minor violence all the time: For example, for a bar fight where someone gets a bloody nose, the police might just send everyone home. Police often resolve violent disputes through mediation. Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored. Where to draw the line is a bit tricky. It could depend on personal or property damage - maybe misdemeanors go home, felonies get arrested. 2) Discard the idea that people in protests are somehow more suspect of being insurrectionists. 3) Discard the guilt-by-association. If one of my co-workers or family members commits a violent crime, the whole company/family shouldn't be investigated. Guilt or innocence is an individual thing. Yes, if someone is an active member in an organization whose mission is violence, that is a different story.
        3y ago

lukan 3y ago

"That is oppression and a tool of oppression, and it's got a long history." Not per se. If it means rounding everyone up regulary and search all their homes for the sake of it - then yes. But investigations can also be discrete. "And if there were, so what? Why must this law be enforced so utterly?" Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans.

wolverine876 3y ago
> Not per se. What do you mean? Not in theory? Theory doesn't matter, because in reality people abuse power if they have it, as they do with that power. > Why must a government not bow to a violent mob? Because it would end democracy, if they would. It would mean, give right to those people, who can get the most determinated hooligans. That sounds apocolyptic. There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?
- lukan 3y ago
  "There have been many protests in democracies, many with some violence, and the democracies survive. " Yeah, because they do not bow to violence. "What democracy has fallen to violent protestors?" The US would have, if they would have accepted that the "protesters" could storm the capitol without consequence for example and decide the outcome of a election by force.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    It's a very absolutist argument. Not all protests or violence are the same, and almost none are a threat to democracy. I don't support violent protest, but absolutist law and order are a much bigger threat to liberty, a way to criminalize and shut down dissent. It's just weaponizing the law.
    - lukan 3y ago
      Dude, I am arguing that violent people need to be investigated. Nothing more. Do you really debate that? I did not say in any word, a whole group needs to be locked down, because one stepped out of line. But if the group openly supports the violence of that one person - well then they invited further investigation to determine if there is more planned in secret. It is a grey area for sure and I am not a fan of police regulary overstepping those lines to stop some drunk nuts. But they do have to check, on whether the nuts are arming themself and getting more dangerous. How would you propose it should work? Ignoring it?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        > How would you propose it should work? Investigation itself is a politically, emotionally, and sometimes financially and socially damaging act, and can lead to oppression. 1) Don't draw the line at zero violence. Law enforcement overlooks minor violence all the time: For example, for a bar fight where someone gets a bloody nose, the police might just send everyone home. Police often resolve violent disputes through mediation. Many women allege that domestic violence is almost always ignored. Where to draw the line is a bit tricky. It could depend on personal or property damage - maybe misdemeanors go home, felonies get arrested. 2) Discard the idea that people in protests are somehow more suspect of being insurrectionists. 3) Discard the guilt-by-association. If one of my co-workers or family members commits a violent crime, the whole company/family shouldn't be investigated. Guilt or innocence is an individual thing. Yes, if someone is an active member in an organization whose mission is violence, that is a different story.
        3y ago