‘Unmasking Antifa Act' includes 15-year prison term proposal.

[skinofevil]

Does that mean that the 11 year old with a scarf wrapped round their face on the way home from the library and happens to piss this judge off by cutting across his lawn is a criminal?

No, because the 11 year old wasn't engaging in the behavior the bill describes -- "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person." That case would likely be thrown out as the prosecutor would have little confidence of securing a conviction. Anyway, judges don't decide criminal cases, juries do. I understand what you and Scrote are worried about, but more so in his case, as he seems to be worried about trigger-happy (or baton-happy) cops. But they're going to do what they do regardless of whether there's a law excusing it or not.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

Does that mean that the 11 year old with a scarf wrapped round their face on the way home from the library and happens to piss this judge off by cutting across his lawn is a criminal?

No, because the 11 year old wasn't engaging in the behavior the bill describes -- "injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person."

And whose word would carry more weight regarding what the 11 year old was up to do you think... the 11 year old or that of a highly respected judge? Don't be naive, you know full well the potential for this legislation to be subverted and no amount of your pretense that the people enforcing this proposed law would all be compelled to apply it reasonably in all cases will fly here.

I understand what you and Scrote are worried about, but more so in his case, as he seems to be worried about trigger-happy (or baton-happy) cops. But they're going to do what they do regardless of whether there's a law excusing it or not.

First and foremost, I ain't "worried" about any aspect of this legislation, it could pass tomorrow and it wouldn't make a lick of difference to me past the potential for me to say "I told you so" should the day come that you somehow find it being applied to someone you care about. Slim chance of that because, as I noted earlier, SCOTUS would ultimately strike it down anyway. Secondly, you admitting "they're going to do what they do regardless of whether there's a law excusing it or not" applies across the board here, nuking any point whatsoever for throwing any weight behind this piece of bullshit legislation in the first place.

If someone were to plead that their face covering was in line with a religious observance, the obvious answer to that is that they'd be asked to name which religion has such an observance. All that pleading would allow would be female "anti"-fascists dressing up like bargain bin ninjas, not the male ones.

I might have thought so too once upon a time, until I heard the tales of self declared Pastafarians showing up for their DMV license photos with collanders on their heads in observance of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Pretty much all bets were off the table as to what your country would accept as a religion after that.


And don't hand me any crap that only female anti-fascists could dress up in burkas either. Head to toe coverings with just a slit for the eyes suggests that not only could a guy pass for your "bargain bin ninja", but that there would be plenty of room for him to hide a lot more potent "offerings" than just a few bottles of piss under there as well.

 

[skinofevil]

And whose word would carry more weight regarding what the 11 year old was up to do you think... the 11 year old or that of a highly respected judge?

Wouldn't matter. It's not about 'word', it's about provability before a jury. Remember, judges don't decide criminal cases; juries do. In fact, jury nullification is quite a powerful thing in the United States, a principle in which, even if a jury believes that the state has proven its case, the jury can actually acquit based on the idea that the law itself is wrong,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. The court system is still ultimately answerable to the jury, which makes the only real immediate threat posed by this bill the threat of trigger-happy cops -- which is already a threat that exists regardless of this proposed bill.

And don't hand me any crap that only female anti-fascists could dress up in burkas either. Head to toe coverings with just a slit for the eyes suggests that not only could a guy pass for your "bargain bin ninja", but that there would be plenty of room for him to hide a lot more potent "offerings" than just a few bottles of piss under there as well.

If anything, this quote only proves the pragmatism of this bill.

Also, just an aside: You're arguing your point here really adeptly. It's been a long while since I've had a good intellectual sparring match like this one, I'm really quite enjoying it. :)

 

[Iggy McLulz]

It's been very enlightening for me to read everyone's responses. :ThumbsUp3:

 

[skinofevil]

I should hope so. So much of the internet is intellectual junk food, it's nice to get some meat and potatoes now and then, isn't it?

 

[Iggy McLulz]

I should hope so. So much of the internet is intellectual junk food, it's nice to get some meat and potatoes now and then, isn't it?

That is exactly what it is for me. I enjoy learning everything I can, sometimes it's by getting other people to discuss things I don't fully understand. I don't always have the attention span for certain subjects so I learn in bits and pieces from other more educated people than myself.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

And whose word would carry more weight regarding what the 11 year old was up to do you think... the 11 year old or that of a highly respected judge?

Wouldn't matter. It's not about 'word', it's about provability before a jury. Remember, judges don't decide criminal cases; juries do.

Yes, and we all saw how that worked out for people like Rubin Carter and Charles Manson, eh? Amazing what you can achieve when a representative of the state insists to be the case even with no evidence to support it, wouldn't you say? Perverting the course of justice is practically as old as the hills, you may like to re-examine just to what extent "provability" actually plays out in the average courtroom since all too often it comes down not to what is "provable" but whose account of the events is deemed "more credible" based on their standing in the community.

The court system is still ultimately answerable to the jury, which makes the only real immediate threat posed by this bill the threat of trigger-happy cops...

...and those who would widen the scope of the proposed legislation to include whomsoever they wished to target in the future. Conceivably even yourself. You seem to be forgetting that.

And don't hand me any crap that only female anti-fascists could dress up in burkas either. Head to toe coverings with just a slit for the eyes suggests that not only could a guy pass for your "bargain bin ninja", but that there would be plenty of room for him to hide a lot more potent "offerings" than just a few bottles of piss under there as well.

If anything, this quote only proves the pragmatism of this bill.

Not really, this is where you would find it being applied to anyone and everyone who happened to be wearing that attire. Some who might have legitimate reason to be wearing such attire. Need I remind you about the rights enumerated in the first amendment again?

Also, just an aside: You're arguing your point here really adeptly. It's been a long while since I've had a good intellectual sparring match like this one, I'm really quite enjoying it. :)

I'm glad you are, but at some point you'll have to either admit the argument is too pure to fuck with or agree to disagree. I've already told you the solution a number of times and am mildly surprised you haven't already leaped at it and embraced it. After all, what point is having the right to bear arms if you're not afforded the right to use them in the pursuit of defending your own interests when they are under threat by an unruly, unlawful mob? I mean outside of a few specialized BDSM kinks they don't really function as sex toys and just leaving them to gather dust in a gun rack or safe while you bleat for less freedom and more government strikes me as being somewhat of a waste.

 

[skinofevil]

...and those who would widen the scope of the proposed legislation to include whomsoever they wished to target in the future. Conceivably even yourself. You seem to be forgetting that.

I'm not forgetting that; it simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't go to protests dressed up like a bargain bin ninja.

After all, what point is having the right to bear arms if you're not afforded the right to use them in the pursuit of defending your own interests when they are under threat by an unruly, unlawful mob?

I don't go to where the unruly, unlawful mobs are. Something that goes hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms is the responsibility to not deliberately put oneself in a position to have to invoke that right, wouldn't you say?

And being all right with masked domestic terrorists being forbidden the veil of anonymity doesn't equate to "less freedom" or "more government." As I've said, no one has a Constitutionally protected right to conceal their identity in public. That's why there's one word for 'public' and another for 'private' -- the one is not the other. These people are concealing their identities at protests for one purpose and one purpose only, and they've proved, again and again, just what that purpose is: to engage in assault and destruction without being identified and punished for it. They're like the real world manifestation of internet keyboard warriors, shitting all over everything emboldened by the perception that they won't have to answer for it.

Taking away their anonymity, in public, means they know they'll have to answer for it and are consequently less likely to do it.

 

[skinofevil]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the alternative you seem to be suggesting is that, rather than making their violent intentions sour with the idea of 15 years in prison, you'd rather see people put bullets between these peoples' eyes. I'm tempted to agree with you, but wouldn't giving them a wake-up call that might turn them away from that first not seem merciful?

 

[skinofevil]

Right, that's me for tonight, though, I've got a news thing to write up, and the rest of Lucifer S2 to binge watch. Chat amongst yourselves. :)

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

...and those who would widen the scope of the proposed legislation to include whomsoever they wished to target in the future. Conceivably even yourself. You seem to be forgetting that.

I'm not forgetting that; it simply doesn't apply to me, since I don't go to protests dressed up like a bargain bin ninja.

Whoa,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

moment! :LMAO2: Hey, it doesn't apply to me either, I don't fall under the jurisdiction of your laws, it hasn't stopped me from calling the more banal and effectively worthless ones for what they are.

After all, what point is having the right to bear arms if you're not afforded the right to use them in the pursuit of defending your own interests when they are under threat by an unruly, unlawful mob?

I don't go to where the unruly, unlawful mobs are. Something that goes hand in hand with the right to keep and bear arms is the responsibility to not deliberately put oneself in a position to have to invoke that right, wouldn't you say?

Agreed. But you surely aren't perfect and that raises the spectre of times when you may inadvertently find yourself in a position of having to invoke that right. And it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this little piece of legislation might be added to the tally of "well, we've got all these laws protecting you from the big mean old baddies who would anonymously exercise their right to free expression while beating your head in, you no longer need your weapons so cough them up". Are you going to argue as fervently in favour of complying with that scenario as well? Something tells me that might be expecting a wee bit too much from you.

And being all right with masked domestic terrorists being forbidden the veil of anonymity doesn't equate to "less freedom" or "more government."

Yeah it does. You are advocating the government and their agents a enjoy a greater scope to govern the affairs of the population. That is "more government" and by extension "less freedom".

As I've said, no one has a Constitutionally protected right to conceal their identity in public.

And as I have said, it might be argued that the freedom of speech would be abridged in an already violent society if people were afraid to speak their minds for fear of having their fucking lights punched out, or getting retrospectively banned from restaurants or (as has been witnessed more recently with Lauren Southern and a few of her associates) denied free movement across the world because they had the audacity to openly espouse in the Wrongthink of their views. Ergo, if someone wishes to indulge in such activity while masked, then writing laws that can be skewed to start arresting them the minute a peaceful rally turns ugly is a breach of your constitution. Remember what I told you about Charlottesville and the police herding peaceful protesters into the clubs of ANTIFA supporters? Would it surprise you to learn that these fine examples of protectors of law and order were smiling as they did this? How many ANTIFA protesters do you suppose were arrested on that day?

That's why there's one word for 'public' and another for 'private' -- the one is not the other. These people are concealing their identities at protests for one purpose and one purpose only, and they've proved, again and again, just what that purpose is: to engage in assault and destruction without being identified and punished for it. They're like the real world manifestation of internet keyboard warriors, shitting all over everything emboldened by the perception that they won't have to answer for it.

Taking away their anonymity, in public, means they know they'll have to answer for it and are consequently less likely to do it.

Let me guess; you want to make exceptions to Bastard Factory's anti-doxxing rules too, amirite?

 

[skinofevil]

But you surely aren't perfect and that raises the spectre of times when you may inadvertently find yourself in a position of having to invoke that right.

Surely you can see the difference between 'inadvertently' and 'deliberately', though. One of the purposes of owning a weapon for self defense is... well, duh, self defense. But it's not 'defense' if you go looking for ways to put yourself into a situation where armed resistance is necessary.

You are advocating the government and their agents a enjoy a greater scope to govern the affairs of the population.

No, what I'm advocating is banning the 21st century version of KKK hoods in order to keep this century's leftist domestic terrorists from engaging in this century's version of cross burning and lynchings.

And as I have said, it might be argued that the freedom of speech would be abridged in an already violent society if people were afraid to speak their minds for fear of having their fucking lights punched out

These are people who don hoods and masks in order to get away with punching other peoples' lights out, so it's really either six of one or half a dozen of the other, isn't it? Anyway, what they're promoting cost over a hundred million lives in the 20th century, they should get beaten into comas, just on principle. If these soy boys want to get beefy, what's the problem with making them show their faces when they do it? As it is, without this bill, they have license to be as barbaric as they want, their violence emboldened by the perception that they won't have to pay for it. All I'm agreeing with is making them either pay for it or decide the cost of paying for it is too high.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the alternative you seem to be suggesting is that, rather than making their violent intentions sour with the idea of 15 years in prison, you'd rather see people put bullets between these peoples' eyes. I'm tempted to agree with you, but wouldn't giving them a wake-up call that might turn them away from that first not seem merciful?

I tend to think the thread of immediate pain is a much more effective deterrent than the "maybe" of a prison term in an already overcrowded prison system which they might very well avoid on a technicality, sure. Why do you think they are bashing people in the first place, instead of yelling at them, or egging their front doors? They sure would scream blue bloody murder if it were happening to them, you'd better believe it.


So if they are advancing with clubs at the ready on someone who suddenly produces a big stick that goes "BANG" and has the potential to make them leak red stuff all over the place, wouldn't that serve as the merciful wake-up call that might persuade most of them to drop their billyclubs and scatter? I think you'll find in most cases that it might. And yeah, a couple of them might drop their clubs and produce guns of their own, but people like you will be ready for that; your gun is already drawn. Please yourself where you aim your rounds at that point, though if I may make an observation here; heads offer a much smaller target than torsos do, so perhaps "between the eyes" is not the place you ought to be aiming.


Besides, death is way too easy an out in my humble opinion and the way your legal system is constructed at this point could very well mean you find yourself on the wrong side of the bench explaining your actions. That's not to say you won't if you deliver a good gutshot to someone who is pulling a semi automatic from their trenchcoat, but you will at least have the argument that you exercised only the force you felt was necessary in the face of a credible threat.


And that, my friend, ought to be more than sufficient for justice to prevail.

 

[skinofevil]

though if I may make an observation here; heads offer a much smaller target than torsos do, so perhaps "between the eyes" is not the place you ought to be aiming.

Well, no, ideally, the target would be center-of-mass. Not just because it's a surer shot but because overpenetration is less of a worry.

The point is, though, shouldn't a deterrent at least be attempted first? I don't like violent Communist thugs any better than anybody else, but wouldn't it be better to save them if possible than to just destroy them?

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

But you surely aren't perfect and that raises the spectre of times when you may inadvertently find yourself in a position of having to invoke that right.

Surely you can see the difference between 'inadvertently' and 'deliberately', though.

I can, but can you? Want to tell me again what distinguishes one burka wearer from another? :LOL1:

You are advocating the government and their agents a enjoy a greater scope to govern the affairs of the population.

No, what I'm advocating is banning the 21st century version of KKK hoods in order to keep this century's leftist domestic terrorists from engaging in this century's version of cross burning and lynchings.

Dress it up any way you like, you are still advocating the government and their agents a enjoy a greater scope to govern the affairs of the population.

And as I have said, it might be argued that the freedom of speech would be abridged in an already violent society if people were afraid to speak their minds for fear of having their fucking lights punched out

These are people who don hoods and masks in order to get away with punching other peoples' lights out

And there are people who don hoods and masks (and the occasional MAGA hat) in order to get away with expressing ideas that are out of favour with people from many different walks of life.

...Anyway, what they're promoting cost over a hundred million lives in the 20th century, they should get beaten into comas, just on principle.

Well they sure as hell aren't comporting themselves in the most favourable of lights, I'll give you that. Not when they are employing the same kind of basher tactics that supporters of the ultra right wing movements in Europe were practicing circa 1930s. One of Fascism's more notable characteristics was the forcible suppression of opposition and I see both sides of your political divide devolving into it. Even yourself, who has spent many hours arguing for legislation with the effective aim of suppressing your opposition by dint of financial penalty when really all you'd need to do is just yank their mask off, if you were really that dumb to think that seeing their face would make them cower away like the elephant man.

If these soy boys want to get beefy, what's the problem with making them show their faces when they do it? As it is, without this bill, they have license to be as barbaric as they want, their violence emboldened by the perception that they won't have to pay for it. All I'm agreeing with is making them either pay for it or decide the cost of paying for it is too high.

They have the exact same license to be as barbaric as they want, with or without the bill. Namely "none". Plenty of ANTIFA do NOT hide behind masks as well and your insistence that this bill is going to make the problem go away is only making you look foolish. "Make them pay for it"? Let's assume for the moment that the bill passes and it nets a bunch of ANTIFA protesters, along with anyone else deemed by your government too inconvenient to be left to run loose and spout the sorts of ideas they have a problem with. Want to tell me how much it costs per year in your tax dollars to corral these people? Betcha didn't think about that, eh? And what's to stop some left leaning government representative from rounding up a bunch of kids the next halloween, perhaps with the intention of proving a misguided point about separating illegal immigrants from their children at the border? Or perhaps running a home invasion LAPD style and getting liberal with their application of this bill on the back of one too many Darth Vader masks in your closet? "We have reason to expect that Kilroy was at last Sunday's rally and here's the evidence"... in this day and age you'd likely find yourself out of a job before the ink had dried on your fingertips, whether you beat the charge or not... and thanks to the internet, that shit will likely dog you for a long, long time.


No, this bill is a bad idea. Quit being a mook and just admit it before some ANTIFA nut gets wise and switches to facepaint of simply grows their hair long.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

though if I may make an observation here; heads offer a much smaller target than torsos do, so perhaps "between the eyes" is not the place you ought to be aiming.

Well, no, ideally, the target would be center-of-mass. Not just because it's a surer shot but because overpenetration is less of a worry.

The point is, though, shouldn't a deterrent at least be attempted first? I don't like violent Communist thugs any better than anybody else, but wouldn't it be better to save them if possible than to just destroy them?

Ummm, having a bigger stick IS the deterrent, much more so than creating laws which the committed are only going to break anyway. Go back to my earlier post regarding the many and varied failures of prohibition in all its forms and get ready to find your taxes hiked further if you insist on making the same mistake again.

 

[skinofevil]

Want to tell me again what distinguishes one burka wearer from another?

Well, one is wearing an actual bur'qa, the other is wearing a snot rag on his face, a watch cap on his head, and shades between the two. In other words, one is wearing a bur'qa and the other isn't.

And there are people who don hoods and masks (and the occasional MAGA hat) in order to get away with expressing ideas that are out of favour with people from many different walks of life.

Color me extremely skeptical on this point. I have yet to see a single image of anyone in a MAGA cap actively concealing their face.

 

[skinofevil]

though if I may make an observation here; heads offer a much smaller target than torsos do, so perhaps "between the eyes" is not the place you ought to be aiming.

Well, no, ideally, the target would be center-of-mass. Not just because it's a surer shot but because overpenetration is less of a worry.

The point is, though, shouldn't a deterrent at least be attempted first? I don't like violent Communist thugs any better than anybody else, but wouldn't it be better to save them if possible than to just destroy them?

Ummm, having a bigger stick IS the deterrent, much more so than creating laws which the committed are only going to break anyway. Go back to my earlier post regarding the many and varied failures of prohibition in all its forms and get ready to find your taxes hiked further if you insist on making the same mistake again.

I'm not sure what taxes you think will be hiked with this bill; handkerchief taxes are something we don't actually have.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

Want to tell me again what distinguishes one burka wearer from another?

Well, one is wearing an actual bur'qa, the other is also wearing a bur'qa. So no, I cannot tell the difference, so I'll pretend you were talking about something else.

Is what you're really saying here.

And there are people who don hoods and masks (and the occasional MAGA hat) in order to get away with expressing ideas that are out of favour with people from many different walks of life.

Color me extremely skeptical on this point. I have yet to see a single image of anyone in a MAGA cap actively concealing their face.

And I've yet to see someone in the act of shoving a gerbil up someone else's ass. Doesn't mean it's never happened.

though if I may make an observation here; heads offer a much smaller target than torsos do, so perhaps "between the eyes" is not the place you ought to be aiming.

Well, no, ideally, the target would be center-of-mass. Not just because it's a surer shot but because overpenetration is less of a worry.

The point is, though, shouldn't a deterrent at least be attempted first? I don't like violent Communist thugs any better than anybody else, but wouldn't it be better to save them if possible than to just destroy them?

Ummm, having a bigger stick IS the deterrent, much more so than creating laws which the committed are only going to break anyway. Go back to my earlier post regarding the many and varied failures of prohibition in all its forms and get ready to find your taxes hiked further if you insist on making the same mistake again.

I'm not sure what taxes you think will be hiked with this bill...

Trust me, the government is real good at getting it's citizens to foot the bill for its mistakes.

 

[skinofevil]

Oh, come now, surely you don't have to resort to anything as juvenile as editing my posts in order to advance your own argument.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

Oh, come now, surely you don't have to resort to anything as juvenile as editing my posts in order to advance your own argument.

You mean after you've willfully misconstrued something I've said? I can see why you'd resort to such trollish behaviour, then cry foul when I one-up you on it. But I've been one-upping you all along... and the funny thing is I've barely begun to get started.


Shall I drop a bombshell or two in your lap at this point? I think I might. Which would you prefer first; the one detailing that the US has a good many anti-mask laws already at the state level which function about as effectively as gun control laws do in places like Chicago? Or perhaps you'd prefer the one showing how the escalation of similar laws in other countries have been abused time and time again exactly how they will be in your own?


See, I'm dealing from a position of strength here. I know how this goes because I've already seen it. You can debate me on it or you can behave like a dick, either way I've beaten your argument before you start.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

Heh, Season two of Lucifer must be looking pretty good right about now, eh? :LOL1:

 

[skinofevil]

You mean after you've willfully misconstrued something I've said?

I've done no such thing.

...the one detailing that the US has a good many anti-mask laws already at the state level which function about as effectively as gun control laws do in places like Chicago?

I'd like to see some evidence on the second part of that. I know several states already have anti-public-anonymity laws -- which, as an aside, makes me wonder why you have such a problem with this one -- but since such laws are already on the books, would you care to point out how your dire predictions about this one have already come true at the state level?

Or perhaps you'd prefer the one showing how the escalation of similar laws in other countries have been abused time and time again exactly how they will be in your own?

I certainly would like to see that, but beware of comparing apples to oranges.

 

[skinofevil]

Heh, Season two of Lucifer must be looking pretty good right about now, eh? :LOL1:

Picture-in-picture on the iPad Pro is indeed lovely, yes, thank you. :)

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

You mean after you've willfully misconstrued something I've said?

I've done no such thing.

Sure you did. I explicitly asked you what distinguishes one burka wearer from another, you immediately pretended I asked you to distinguish between a burka wearer and someone in a kerchief. You're wasting your time with your outright lie to the contrary.

...the one detailing that the US has a good many anti-mask laws already at the state level which function about as effectively as gun control laws do in places like Chicago?

I'd like to see some evidence on the second part of that.

Very well, let's revisit Charlottesville. Were you aware that is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to wear a mask in Virginia? Meaning one to five years in the poky? Exactly what effectiveness did that law have from preventing violent clashes again?





Oh right... fuck all. Surprise surprise, you go to a peaceful rally to protest the impending removal of some wanky statue of one of your nations cultural icons, and the cops herd you into a crowd of lawbreaking individuals for whatever amusement it provides them.

Yeah, you need that 15 year incarceration bill because the five year one was working ever so well. :LOL2:

I know several states already have anti-public-anonymity laws -- which, as an aside, makes me wonder why you have such a problem with this one

Simple. They don't work. Well, at least not in the way you're pretending they do... feel free to check the evidence above if you're still not sure. And do feel free to dig through other examples of raw footage of the day if you think the masked guy who threw the first punch was a one-off, isolated incident.


[

Or perhaps you'd prefer the one showing how the escalation of similar laws in other countries have been abused time and time again exactly how they will be in your own?

I certainly would like to see that, but beware of comparing apples to oranges.

I'll compare whatever the hell I want. See that sleepy little country to the north of yours? They had a similar law prohibiting the wearing of masks a few years ago... "disguise with intent" to be specific, which according to you is what this current anti-ANTIFA deal is all about... and this law criminalized the concealment of ones face while engaged in criminal acts. Seemed like a great idea, had a fair bit of support being that it had a fairly high burden of proof that the masked person was out to commit a crime and all...carried a maximum term of ten years imprisonment... not exactly an "apples and oranges" situation when you stop to think about it, right? Right.


Then came 2011 and a thing called Bill C-309 which allowed for citizens to be preemptively arrested and convicted for wearing masks at assemblies the government had a problem with without any evidence of conspiracy or crime. And the kicker was that they could decide at any moment that they didn't like the tone of any particular protest and just go out and start arresting people. Introduced by the conservative government too, though it did enjoy unanimous support from the liberal opposition as well... well before groups like ANTIFA were out making waves, though not before Anonymous was, which ought to indicate just who were the intended targets of the new legislation. Certainly wasn't ANTIFA, they're currently out doing what they do and the cops are by and large giving them the same free rein to do it as their counterparts south of the border did in places like Virginia. Meanwhile (and this had already been telegraphed in the media) anyone caught wearing a Guy Fawkes mask was at risk for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, whether they were expressing views at odds with the government or not and in the absence of any crime being committed. And I dunno about you, but I cannot recall too many instances where Anonymous has shown up in public to instigate punch-ons with their ideological opponents. By its very nature, the group (if it can even be called that) is a hodgepodge of individuals with no clear leader and therefore very little organizational structure. You ever see them out and about, it's generally as a peaceful show of support for some cause that a few people wished to engage in without getting their asses handed to them.


That my friend is but a taste of what tyranny looks like and it's what your government wishes for you...and more. You want to be like Canada, you go right ahead and keep shilling for that bill of yours... and don't be surprised when they turn around and say it's not enough. It may interest you to know that since C-309's introduction, ANTIFA have been beating the living shit out of Quebecois and Ontarians while the police simply sit back and watch. Say something unkind about the government of the day however... well they are going to make damn sure who you are, keep a close eye on you and... if they think it necessary... "take care of you" in any way they can make stick. I hear they've entertained the idea of NSA-styled surveillance as well... you know... to catch terrorists and all.


Does that sound like the sort of arrangement you'd like to find yourself subject to? Or maybe you'd prefer something a bit more authoritarian... something like what the UK currently enjoys. Six years ago my brother (who was on an extended holiday in England at the time) was almost gunned down while enjoying a leisurely stroll along the banks of the Thames. It was pissing down at the time, so he had his hoodie up. Big mistake as it turns out; suddenly he's surrounded by nine extremely nervous and trigger-happy law enforcement agents demanding to know who he was and what his business being there was. He told me later that he had never been more frightened for his safety than in that moment; reckoned it wasn't until they heard his accent that the officers showed any indication of relaxing and it wasn't until he'd been thoroughly searched before the weapons were lowered. Even so, he was still subjected to a further twenty minutes of questioning before he was free to go. Kinda puts paid to the whole "if you've nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" garbage.


And that was six years ago and in the absence of any anti-masking laws, though admittedly they were in the process of trying to reinstate a reworked version the Black Act (repealed in 1823) at the time. These days if you've been caught expressing anything online that isn't left wing enough they simply won't allow you into the country. You get detained at the border, thoroughly searched (electronic devices and all) and questioned without any right to an attorney for the first hour and can be held for five (or is it six) before they pop you on a plane back out. Still, that's better than the locals can expect if Tommy Robertson is any guide. You remember him; the one time EDL leader convicted of the heinous crime of filming the front of the courthouse wherein a group of muslim pedophiles and child sex traffickers were being tried and no UK citizen was allowed to report any aspect of it. Last I heard he was being transferred to a prison with a large muslim contingent to serve out the remainder of his thirteen month sentence... presuming nobody shivved him in the interim.


This is more or less where the road can lead you when you champion the state's right to do as they please in the legislature. Imagine if years down the track you had cause for genuine concern over what your government of the day was doing, but was prohibited from criticizing or even commenting on it. You're already a good ways along the road towards it now, your media lies to protect your ruling class and the kickbacks they provide and keeps you busy fighting the symptoms rather than the cause. You in turn willingly allow yourself to be bullshitted to and ridden roughshod over. Wake up. You may not be rushing out to whale on ANTIFA but you're as blind to your own echo chamber's fallacies as they are theirs.

 

[skinofevil]

Well, let's talk about Charlottesville, for a moment. Those cops refused to enforce the law. Had that law been Federal, those cops would have had to answer to the DOJ. You'll have to pardon me, though, I'm not sure where your objection to this bill is coming from now. As for anti-masking laws against Anonymous, you're still missing my point. You yourself point out that Anons are masking up but not attacking people or destroying property. Our homegrown Communist thugs are masking up and are attacking people and destroying property.

This bill targets that behavior, which is why it's named after them. (Which, btw, was a bad call, IMO, to name it after them.)

As I've said, though, I don't consider a law to be the optimum way to deal with them. I'd say the most effective way to dissuade them from their behavior would be to have them beaten until they require hospitalization. Show up with their faces covered, carrying batons? Don't cuff them -- just beat them until they're neutralized and leave them lie where they fall. Don't anyone even give them a single word of explanation, let them figure out for themselves why it happened.

Bear in mind, I don't condone that; I'm only saying it would be the most effective remedy to their didoes.

 

[skinofevil]

Now you really must pardon me; it's 0515 here, it's my Friday night -into- Saturday morning, and so I am sipping vodka and soda, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier is just getting to the best bits.

 

[aunty mabels cuntwash]

Well, let's talk about Charlottesville, for a moment. Those cops refused to enforce the law. Had that law been Federal, those cops would have had to answer to the DOJ.

So? Are you pretending to tell me that the alphabet soup brigade are above and beyond a little nudge from The RIght People to turn a blind eye when it serves their purpose? Donald Trump doesn't seem to think so and I for one don't blame him.

You'll have to pardon me, though, I'm not sure where your objection to this bill is coming from now. As for anti-masking laws against Anonymous, you're still missing my point. You yourself point out that Anons are masking up but not attacking people or destroying property. Our homegrown Communist thugs are masking up and are attacking people and destroying property.

This bill targets that behavior, which is why it's named after them. (Which, btw, was a bad call, IMO, to name it after them.)

There's a lot it seems I need to pardon you for, including the perennial ability to miss the obvious even when it's spelled out to you. Repeatedly. With pictures no less. Did you even watch the video? Mind telling me what percentage of the people there were "masked up"? Of course not, you might have had to admit that such a law would have caught only a fraction of the combatants and otherwise done jack. Most of them weren't covering up... that is until the tear gas was deployed, at which point pretty much anyone trying to breathe might have reasonably been thrown in the back of the police truck. Based on the actions of the state police and local law enforcement, IF the pigs were going to start enforcing the law at that point I can almost guarantee you that a disproportionate amount of those arrested would have been republicans, because the cops sure as hell weren't there to stop ANTIFA.


But I tend to think they were happier to watch these people knock the stuffing out of each other, for whatever reason is not immediately clear, though I'm cynical enough to think a object demonstrations of carnage are a good foil for passing legislation like the one currently under consideration, particularly when so much about the day doesn't lend itself to adding up to anything else.

As I've said, though, I don't consider a law to be the optimum way to deal with them. I'd say the most effective way to dissuade them from their behavior would be to have them beaten until they require hospitalization. Show up with their faces covered, carrying batons? Don't cuff them -- just beat them until they're neutralized and leave them lie where they fall. Don't anyone even give them a single word of explanation, let them figure out for themselves why it happened.

Bear in mind, I don't condone that; I'm only saying it would be the most effective remedy to their didoes.

Or you could simply bus in enough of them to make up the numbers and rely upon them to follow their quarry about the streets for a few hours, maybe orchestrate a bit of carmageddon in a side street to load the dice a bit. Conspiracy? Maybe, maybe not. It sure would explain the discrepancy between the Dodge Challenger in the videos and the registration ticket of the guy they eventually arrested though, along with those magical pinstripes that changed colour though.

Now you really must pardon me; it's 0515 here, it's my Friday night -into- Saturday morning, and so I am sipping vodka and soda, and Captain America: The Winter Soldier is just getting to the best bits.

Yeah. whatever, I'm sure I can find better uses for my time than arguing the toss with what must surely be a troll. Knock yourself out with your booze and light entertainment, I'm sure you'll be back to revisit this furfy you're so in favour of.

 

[senior penor]

Very well, let's revisit Charlottesville. Were you aware that is a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

to wear a mask in Virginia? Meaning one to five years in the poky? Exactly what effectiveness did that law have from preventing violent clashes again?

I think we all can agree that laws are only as effective as the bumblefucks that actually enforce them. Remember that gongshow with oakland California? if not, let me refresh you: The oakland mayor went on TV and told her communities that the federales were coming in and doing their job, and basically gave a heads up to every human sex trafficker and Illegal immigrant to go hide. What needs to happen is for the DOJ and the FBI to start dragging these jackoffs in office that blatantly undermene and break the law, and arrest these beaurocrats that sign policies into law that effectively stop the police from doing their job. Once we get the hug-a-thug pencilpushers out and get people in tyo actually enforce the laws, then the U.S. congress can look at more laws. I think the current laws are more than suffecient to deal with violent masked dickheads that cause violence. You just need a law enforcement and some prosecuters with enough stones to actually enforce it.

 

[skinofevil]

Yeah. whatever, I'm sure I can find better uses for my time than arguing the toss with what must surely be a troll. Knock yourself out with your booze and light entertainment, I'm sure you'll be back to revisit this furfy you're so in favour of.

Indeed, I enjoy the fuckity-plops out of my weekends. But without wearing a mask. 3:)