In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
The city had a murder and attempted murder by a white supremacist and now the murder’s buddies want to hold a march supporting those views. Man, I can’t think why the Mayor would want to avoid the conflict that will result from that march taking place. That thing ends in riot gear and tear gas.
It's also so damn insensitive to carry homophobic signs at a military funeral...
If the first amendment rests on one murder, it would've been as worthless as Trump's tweet last night. And to think liberals used to stand for civil rights, it's actually the best irony here.
I completely support their right to march. And I support the mayor in the efforts to avoid the violence that will result from that march, but you are correct that they shouldn’t be denied based on their beliefs. The argument of public safety is both compelling and a legally sound.
But I also won’t be that broken up when the march happens and violence is the result. Sometimes we need to touch the stove.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
The city had a murder and attempted murder by a white supremacist and now the murder’s buddies want to hold a march supporting those views. Man, I can’t think why the Mayor would want to avoid the conflict that will result from that march taking place. That thing ends in riot gear and tear gas.
Hey now that guy is a true patriot /s
That guy is absolutely right. He represents American patriotism in action very accurately: Fuck over anyone that doesn't see things your way. Use whatever means possible.
On May 31 2017 23:39 Plansix wrote: I’ve never been big into economics and generally avoid getting to deep into the topic. But from the outside, I notice the term “false/fake economy” gets tossed around when governments attempt to direct their national economy in a specific direction. The “real economy” seems elusive, but I think it might be made up of whatever entrenched interests stand to lose under the directed economic growth.
And I know that governments are bad at managing economies. I’m not convinced that the business sector is much better at it.
I always just assumed anyone who is really pro-business has never worked at the bottom rung of a large corporation.
On May 31 2017 23:15 zlefin wrote: so, what is the current legal status of the US on the paris accords? is it an unratified treaty?
See wouldn't it be nice if it had been brought before the Senate to ratify?
The United States never ratifies anything remotely related to human rights.
The US has not ratified any international human rights treaties since December 2002, when it ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time, important new treaties have been adopted and other long-standing treaties have gained new member states. Unfortunately, the US has too often remained outside these efforts. For example, the US is the only country other than Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. It is one of only seven countries-together with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga- that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): signed, not ratified - Convention on the Rights of the Child: signed, not ratified - Convention against Enforced Disappearance: no action - Mine Ban Treaty: no action - Convention on Cluster Munitions: no action - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: no action - Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: no action
Ah, the great land of freedom. Doesn't care about children, doesn't care about the environment that we all live in, doesn’t care about women, doesn't care about the use of mines, doesn't care about cluster munitions, doesn’t care about disabilities, doesn't care about torture.
It just cares about its own power, preventing itself from being held accountable and blaming Russia for everything.
If it's more directed at signaling a pace of future action, like the many virtue signallers I run into, then have at it. If this is important and effective and all the things I've heard in in the coffee shops of Hollywood, then you're making these treaties out of sand.
Edit: Shout out to climate "human rights" crowd.
I don't know what you're on about with virtue signalling. This is about being held accountable at an international level. The US has repeatedly shown it considers itself to be above international law, and won't ratify any conventions or treaties that may result in it being held accountable for its actions.
Nations are sovereign entities. It might be nice to have bodies scribing international condemnations and discussing economic sanctions. But make no mistake, if you want internationalism you better recognize your limits. You may make it costly or not in our best interest to bow out of certain agreements, but it is the business of the American people to hold our government accountable. Unless you're prepared to declare war or engage in a mutually disadvantageous trade war on the issue, you only pretend to accountability.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
The city had a murder and attempted murder by a white supremacist and now the murder’s buddies want to hold a march supporting those views. Man, I can’t think why the Mayor would want to avoid the conflict that will result from that march taking place. That thing ends in riot gear and tear gas.
It's also so damn insensitive to carry homophobic signs at a military funeral...
If the first amendment rests on one murder, it would've been as worthless as Trump's tweet last night. And to think liberals used to stand for civil rights, it's actually the best irony here.
I completely support their right to march. And I support the mayor in the efforts to avoid the violence that will result from that march, but you are correct that they shouldn’t be denied based on their beliefs. The argument of public safety is both compelling and a legally sound.
But I also won’t be that broken up when the march happens and violence is the result. Sometimes we need to touch the stove.
If they're walking around calling for physical violence against mothers and BMW-drivers, I'm with you. Otherwise, I don't see how this is any different from civil rights marches where the public safety is affected by crowds moving in opposition.
We need the debate on the financial impact of protecting the marchers. And just like in the civil rights era, violence and threats of violence shouldn't serve to impinge the civil rights of political minorities.
I have to reluctantly agree with Danglars. Many of the treaties referenced were rejected for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are not enforceable or went beyond the limits of what a treaty can do in the US. There are limits to what international rules and laws congress can sign us up for. Especially if it subjects US citizens to courts or laws not set by the US.
The Paris Accord is not part of that and congress could have ratified it. But Congress isn’t in the business of being involved with those decisions any more, only heckling when they are made without them.
On May 31 2017 23:15 zlefin wrote: so, what is the current legal status of the US on the paris accords? is it an unratified treaty?
See wouldn't it be nice if it had been brought before the Senate to ratify? Like the constitutional treaty power?
I never saw the sense of something so big and important but who cares about passing it through the separation of powers doctrine.
It would never have passed the senate. Trump doing this is pretty bad, but the only reason we are in this mess is how badly the GOP has dealt with the idea of climate change. 22 GOP senators wrote a letter to Trump asking him to pull out of the Paris deal.
Well, better luck with supermajorities in the Senate next time. Article II treaties are a wee bit more resilient to a single bad president.
It shouldn't take a Democratic supermajority to get common sense treaties that benefit everyone through the Senate. The fact that it does is not the fault of the Democrats.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
The city had a murder and attempted murder by a white supremacist and now the murder’s buddies want to hold a march supporting those views. Man, I can’t think why the Mayor would want to avoid the conflict that will result from that march taking place. That thing ends in riot gear and tear gas.
It's also so damn insensitive to carry homophobic signs at a military funeral...
If the first amendment rests on one murder, it would've been as worthless as Trump's tweet last night. And to think liberals used to stand for civil rights, it's actually the best irony here.
I completely support their right to march. And I support the mayor in the efforts to avoid the violence that will result from that march, but you are correct that they shouldn’t be denied based on their beliefs. The argument of public safety is both compelling and a legally sound.
But I also won’t be that broken up when the march happens and violence is the result. Sometimes we need to touch the stove.
If they're walking around calling for physical violence against mothers and BMW-drivers, I'm with you. Otherwise, I don't see how this is any different from civil rights marches where the public safety is affected by crowds moving in opposition.
We need the debate on the financial impact of protecting the marchers. And just like in the civil rights era, violence and threats of violence shouldn't serve to impinge the civil rights of political minorities.
I would make the argument that the march by the alt-right in Portland is in support of Jeremy Christian, who believes that he has the right to harass Muslims in the US. And believes that anyone who tries to stop him is an enemy of the US and he can murder them. If that is their message and what they intent to march in support of, I would say they are advocating violence.
I support the right to free expression, but we to discuss that groups are pushing the limits. If these marchers come out staying “there are no safe spaces, no place to hide form free speech” as coded language that they intent on harassing Muslim and other minorities, we are going to have to have a national discussion about it.
On June 01 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote: I have to reluctantly agree with Danglars. Many of the treaties referenced were rejected for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are not enforceable or went beyond the limits of what a treaty can do in the US. There are limits to what international rules and laws congress can sign us up for. Especially if it subjects US citizens to courts or laws not set by the US.
The Paris Accord is not part of that and congress could have ratified it. But Congress isn’t in the business of being involved with those decisions any more, only heckling when they are made without them.
Yes, it is known that the US only thinks that people should be arrested or murdered by the US when they break international laws but are not from the US. And then it will do anything to get at those people. But of course nobody can arrest US citizens for breaking international law. If they do, the US will happily invade the Netherlands to retrieve people subject to an international court.
Also, with regards to the Convention on the Rights of Child:
President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this. The Obama administration said that it intended to submit the Convention to the Senate, but failed to do so.
On June 01 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote: I have to reluctantly agree with Danglars. Many of the treaties referenced were rejected for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are not enforceable or went beyond the limits of what a treaty can do in the US. There are limits to what international rules and laws congress can sign us up for. Especially if it subjects US citizens to courts or laws not set by the US.
The Paris Accord is not part of that and congress could have ratified it. But Congress isn’t in the business of being involved with those decisions any more, only heckling when they are made without them.
That's a cop out. You have a torture camp on ground that is yours but conveniently not yours. There are very few nations that so blatantly tell everyone they are the home of freedom and rule of law and then violate freedom and rule of law when needed. You can always find some instance where what you were doing was okay and then use this to justify the other things. Protection against the discrimination of women is probably one that has only visual effect, but banning cluster bombs certainly not.
"Hague invasion clause", that's golden. Two years ago I had a conference next door to the court in Hague, so now I imagine seeing a commando in black helicopters liberating some US war criminal from the window
On June 01 2017 00:45 opisska wrote: "Hague invasion clause", that's golden. Two years ago I had a conference next door to the court in Hague, so now I imagine seeing a commando in black helicopters liberating some US war criminal from the window
This kind of stuff from the US is absolutely endless. Like the torture our German friend Mr Bread Roll mentioned. The US has no respect for anyone but themselves. Like that brute shoving the Prime Minister of Montenegro out of the way.
On June 01 2017 00:20 Danglars from the United States wrote: Nations are sovereign entities.
Bwahahahahahahahaha. No, no, according to your country, nations are puppets to be used as you deem fit. They represent strategic locations to be invaded and resources that can be extracted. They are not "sovereign entities". Don't be ridiculous.
On June 01 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote: I have to reluctantly agree with Danglars. Many of the treaties referenced were rejected for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are not enforceable or went beyond the limits of what a treaty can do in the US. There are limits to what international rules and laws congress can sign us up for. Especially if it subjects US citizens to courts or laws not set by the US.
The Paris Accord is not part of that and congress could have ratified it. But Congress isn’t in the business of being involved with those decisions any more, only heckling when they are made without them.
Yes, it is known that the US only thinks that people should be arrested or murdered by the US when they break international laws but are not from the US. And then it will do anything to get at those people. But of course nobody can arrest US citizens for breaking international law. If they do, the US will happily invade the Netherlands to retrieve people subject to an international court.
Also, with regards to the Convention on the Rights of Child:
President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this. The Obama administration said that it intended to submit the Convention to the Senate, but failed to do so.
Exceptional.
I am sure that Obama didn’t submit that because he felt it being denied by the Senate would do more harm than good. Though I agree that our nation is pretty much garbage on human rights and has been for some time.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
The city had a murder and attempted murder by a white supremacist and now the murder’s buddies want to hold a march supporting those views. Man, I can’t think why the Mayor would want to avoid the conflict that will result from that march taking place. That thing ends in riot gear and tear gas.
That guy is absolutely right. He represents American patriotism in action very accurately: Fuck over anyone that doesn't see things your way. Use whatever means possible.
That's a bit too dark man...
It's Trump era. You react to despicable behavior with sarcasm on what violent criminals think about patriotism.
EPT
