Protecting democracy by evading democratic processes. If they are not trusting the parliaments to come up with the right decisions, what are they protecting then?
[deleted]
EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
171–180 of 279 posts
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#172From the article "Climate activism is on the rise, together with an increased willingness to use violence, marking a shift from environmental activism to environmental extremism" As far as I can tell, climate activists have been making a nuisance of themselves much more than a 'willingness to use violence.' I find this justification concerning, to say the least.
They have been using violence. Violence against property mostly but that's violence nonetheless. Throwing paint or other things at buildings and pieces of art in museums is violence (criminal damage is not peaceful protest). But in the grand scheme of things this is indeed a weak justification.
I disagree that "violence" is an accurate word to use when describing property damage.
Someone smarter than me wrote:
> Anarchists dedicated to nonviolent direct action are not opposed to all forms of property damage. It can be an effective strategy if the decision to do it involves all participants, the target chosen is one that will guarantee no one who is not part of the action could be injured, and the method used does not frighten the public.
> A simple example is the Food Not Bombs actions taken the night of August 19th... we spray-painted the outline of "dead” bodies on the ground, stenciled mushroom clouds with the word “Today?” and wheat-pasted "War is Murder for Profit" posters along the route that the weapons buyers and sellers would take from their hotel to the conference hall. taking credit for hundreds of dollars in graffiti damage to Boston University's property. Who did this frighten into the arms of the state? No one.
Rebecca Solnit wrote:
> I want to be clear that property damage is not necessarily violence. The firefighter breaks the door to get the people out of the building. But the husband breaks the dishes to demonstrate to his wife that he can and may also break her. It’s violence displaced onto the inanimate as a threat to the animate.
> Quietly eradicating experimental GMO crops or pulling up mining claim stakes is generally like the firefighter. Breaking windows during a big demonstration is more like the husband. I saw the windows of a Starbucks and a Niketown broken in downtown Seattle after nonviolent direct action had shut the central city and the World Trade Organization ministerial down. I saw scared-looking workers and knew that the CEOs and shareholders were not going to face that turbulence and they sure were not going to be the ones to clean it up. Economically it meant nothing to them.
https://www.foodnotbombs.net/a.%20Anarchist%20Cookbook%20int...
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#173To quote some of the people I know who would be impacted the most by this: > Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If they'd not spend the last 10 years purging the old guard who they called free speech fanatics they'd have someone in their corner. Now I just have the world tiniest violin for them. Or to use much better words than mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqytjlHNIM
[deleted]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#174Looks like the descent into totalitarianism is going well.
[deleted]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#175[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#176[deleted]
[deleted]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#177Being a "Terrorist" is a badge of honour at this rate. The way they chop+change and broaden their definitions. Let's also not forget, Nelson Mandela was branded as a terrorist.
> Let's also not forget, Nelson Mandela was branded as a terrorist. Mandela was the leader of MK[0], an organization which publicly undertook a campaign of bombing and sabotage. Whatever you think of Mandela or his reasons, labeling him a "terrorist" seems a lot more defensible than most. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_weSizwe
Lest we forgot how they dealt with collaborators: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
>Necklacing is a method of extrajudicial summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire drenched with petrol around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire. The term "necklace" originated in the 1980s in black townships of apartheid South Africa where suspected apartheid collaborators were publicly executed in this fashion.[1]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#178[deleted]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#179I mean we’re 20 years into shipping suspects without trial to Cuba
[deleted]
Re: EU: Definition of "potential terrorists" opens door to broad information-sharing
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is currently an initiative to forbid a political party, the AfD in Germany. This is not supported by the CDU, but by others. While I do not like the AfD, forbidding political parties that serve as an outlet for people who do not support the uniparty and their essentially identical policies seems to be one of the most totalitarian measures in postwar Germany. The SPD should instead examine why they themselves ar…
The AfD has a serious right-wing problem and doesn't want to clean up their act. Banning the party might lead to failure as with the NPD (which since renamed itself) but it's worth a try and in parallel axing their funding like just happened earlier this year with the NPD should be attempted. I disagree with your "totalitarian measure" comment, it is the AfD who are not compatible with the German constitution and the…
The "Reichsbürger" are a tiny group of completely irrelevant nutcases, and according to the FAZ Malsack-Winkemann is no longer in the AfD:
https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/ex-afd-abgeordnet...
Connections to the AfD exist, because extreme right people will always choose the most right wing viable party (NPD or successor is too small) as their home. The question is the percentage of these people and if all of them are genuine or some of them are planted.
I agree with the CDU here that the purported issue is not clear enough. It is a shame that we do not have the relatively normal political era of Schmidt, Kohl and Genscher, but that's the fault of the CDU/SPD.