Anti-Fascists Ruined a Speech by the Leader of the French National Front at Oxford Uni Last Night - Polidicks

[b]Anti-Fascists Ruined a Speech by the Leader of the French National Front at Oxford Uni Last Night[/b] Source: [url=http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/marine-le-pen-front-national-oxford-union-099?utm_source=vicetwitteruk]VICE[/url] _______________ [quote]Hundreds of students and anti-fascists disrupted a speech by Marine Le Pen, leader of France's far-right Front National at the Oxford Union last night. Le Pen and her party would have been proud of the invitation to talk at such an important institution. But through the thin walls of the old crumbling building, she and the audience would have heard the disgusted cries of people who think she should never have been there in the first place. Her speech was held back for an hour, hundreds were blocked from getting in, and the night ended with her sitting in a police van being followed down the street by irate anti-fascists. It was an evening the Oxford Union would have been used to. They have a habit of inviting racist creeps to debates to show how brilliantly open minded they are and to cause a bit of a stir. In 2007 protesters broke through into the debating chamber to oppose the invitation of Nick Griffin, then leader of the far-right British National Party. It seemed like the Union had learnt a lesson when they dropped another invitation for Griffin in 2013. But last year, former English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson was asked to speak in the wake of Rotherham's child abuse scandal. It was also opposed. [img]http://i.imgur.com/r6Il6mb.jpg[/img] When I arrived in Oxford about an hour before Le Pen was due to speak, hundreds of students were queuing up on St Michael's Street outside the Union building waiting to hear her. Nobody I interviewed seemed to agree with Le Pen's xenophobic, anti-immigrant politics but many were interested in how she might justify and explain them. [img]http://i.imgur.com/UVjp4BI.jpg[/img] "I'm not here because I support her," Will, a 21-year-old history student told me. "But I think we need to listen to her because she is being listened to by others. We should engage with her on a rational level and ask her some intelligent questions." [img]http://i.imgur.com/dR5QlFL.jpg[/img] Most people in the queue agreed. For a while, the only people protesting were Unite Against Fascism. They'd set up a stand and a PA system at one end of the street and lectured the largely unimpressed students about their views on what free speech actually means. [img]http://i.imgur.com/dw21BB2.jpg[/img] A few minutes later the atmosphere changed. As the long line of students began to make their way in through the Union gate, a bunch of new protestors arrived from a variety of anti-racist and anti-fascist groups including RS21, NUS Black Students Campaign, Stand Up to UKIP, London Black Revs and Berkshire Antifascists. The demonstration swelled to between 200 and 300. Though Le Pen had already managed to slip in through a side entrance on Cornmarket Street, they weren't about to let things run smoothly. One activist I spoke to said he had already tried to stop the event. He and several others woke up at five in the morning to put bike locks on each of the Union's entrances. University security guards just sawed through them. [img]http://i.imgur.com/dkKf8we.jpg[/img] The Oxford Union, which is not affiliated to the University, defended Le Pen's invitation on its website. The Union says that it, "believes first and foremost in freedom of speech". The anti-fascists trying to shut down the event argued that allowing people to say what they want doesn't necessarily involve actively inviting people to your gilded plinth to say it, particularly someone whose party is home to an ugly mix of rank and file racists and nationalists. [img]http://i.imgur.com/Xfedxtn.jpg[/img] "Marine Le Pen has done nothing to erase her father's anti-semitic legacy," Jonathan Katz, a 23-year-old Jewish graduate student told me. "Even if it says it's courting us Jews it's quite obvious if you're going to balls sponsored by neo-Nazis in Austria that you're not really a friend of the Jews. I'm very shocked that the Oxford Union has invited her to speak particularly given that Jewish and Muslim students already feel so threatened in the current environment. Freedom of speech should not be idolised over the freedom of people to live a safe life." [img]http://i.imgur.com/E7334Oi.jpg[/img] Annie Teriba, a 20-year-old history and politics student with RS21 echoed those thoughts. "I'm standing here watching a line of largely white people go in to debate my identity because that seems fucking interesting to them," she said. "My identity is not up for debate. My safety is not up for debate and if you think it is, you don't deserve a place on our campus either. We're not opposed to debating these ideas – we do that all the time. But that doesn't require having someone like Marine Le Pen on our campus." [img]http://i.imgur.com/Dv8pPxe.jpg[/img] After half an hour of chanting, five or six anti-fascists holding anarchist flags suddenly moved to the front gate and blocked the 200-odd students still cueing outside from getting in. The two security guards on the door, holding nothing but clipboards, decided to shut the gate to try and contain things. There was a bit of a stand off before one activist moved forward, shouting out the code of the locked door – which he somehow knew – to those at the front. The door was forced open, but despite some pushing and shoving, the same two security guards somehow managed to keep the entire crowd out with nothing but their feet. Only the activist that had shouted out the code managed to get in, and charged into the courtyard as an army of one. [img]http://i.imgur.com/RBtosXe.jpg[/img] "I was the only person," he told me after. "I ran straight up into the union chamber inside the courtyard. The moment they saw that the gate had been breached there were two people stood by the double doors where Le Pen was speaking. They pulled the doors shut and started running after me. I was shouting 'Nazi scum here we come' at them. They dragged me out into the back entrance before I was able to run off." [img]http://i.imgur.com/g2dNU7m.jpg[/img] At this stage the police – who had been absent up to this point – started to arrive in the courtyard. After an hour delay to the debate the Union had finally made a decision to close the gate, seal the other entrances and stop all further access. The night then turned into a noise demo. For the next hour or so people gathered around trying to disrupt the event just 20 meters away by making as big a racket as possible. [img]http://i.imgur.com/xvM0Rv1.jpg[/img] Some of the students that had tried to get in stayed, confused and irritated in the freezing cold. Standing away from the main demo I spoke to Rupert Cunningham a 22-year-old classics student. He was former President of the Oxford Conservative Association, and dressed in the way he will when he holds high office in about 30 years time. He arrived towards the end of the protest but told me that he had no interest in being a part of it. "I think they are presenting quite an intimidating front to people who are generally interested in what she has to say. They have the right to protest, but trying to shut down debate is not good at all," he said. "If Marine Le Pen can come anywhere to have her views questioned and intellectually challenged the Oxford Union is the place to do it," he told me. This made me wonder if antifascists should actually be encouraging the Oxford Union to debate the far-right. Maybe if every fascist top dog in the whole world was subjected to the withering critique of a particularly precocious first year PPE student, they would give the whole thing a re-think and stop being so nasty? Maybe not. [img]http://i.imgur.com/TWJNjDc.jpg[/img] Speaking for first year PPE students, Sam Slater was also quite annoyed. "I don't think these people understand that fascism doesn't start with a speech," he said. "It starts with a basic erosion of freedoms like the freedom of speech and assembly – which these people are denying me. I think these guys are the real fascists." After a while the chanting started to die down with no more than 30 to 40 demonstrators remaining. I decided to leave but shortly afterwards an activist called me to say Marine Le Pen had been spotted coming out of a side entrance by a group of protesters. [img]http://i.imgur.com/W0R0aia.jpg[/img] "They saw her walking out through the side with her head covered like she was a celebrity coming out of court," I was told. "She got into a police van and ten people started following after it but the van got away. People were annoyed at the police for having protected her." In France, where people's opinions of Le Pen are more important, her attempts to rebrand the Front National appear to be working. An opinion poll published last week suggests she would finish top of the first round of the next presidential election – just her like her father did in 2002. However, her party is stained by a legacy of fascism. As last night showed, while her popularity grows, plenty of people will still try and make her life difficult wherever she goes. Meanwhile, all the fuss of the night probably did little to dissuade the Oxford Union from inviting "controversial" speakers to debate with them in future.[/quote] [i]"It starts with a basic erosion of freedoms like the freedom of speech and assembly – which these people are denying me. I think these guys are the real fascists." [/i] Couldn't have said it better myself. What a bunch of fucking idiots.

Well I don't think it's much of a secret that the people who claim to be the most against fascism themselves tend to have the most fascist tendencies. Eg the 'anti-fascists' in Ukraine

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47090874]Well I don't think it's much of a secret that the people who claim to be the most against fascism themselves tend to have the most fascist tendencies. Eg the 'anti-fascists' in Ukraine[/QUOTE] That's called the "horseshoe theory". [quote=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory]The horseshoe theory in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. The theory is attributed to French writer Jean-Pierre Faye.[/quote] Pretty much.

These so called "Anti-Fascists" are extremists just like any neo-nazi is. In some cases they're even worse.

This reminds me of that one time where a bunch of feminists went and interrupted an MRA speech at a Canadian university. They activated the fire alarm, so everyone had to be evacuated from the building, preventing the speech. Yet they're the ones who play the "I am oppressed, I want freedom of speech!" card at every chance they get. [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80[/hd] I just can't take none of these people seriously anymore.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47090902]This reminds me of that one time where a bunch of feminists went and interrupted an MRA speech at a Canadian university. They activated the fire alarm, so everyone had to be evacuated from the building, preventing the speech. Yet they're the ones who play the "I am oppressed, I want freedom of speech!" card at every chance they get. [hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80[/hd] I just can't take none of these people seriously anymore.[/QUOTE] why did you even mention something about feminism with an event that's completely irrelevant to it?

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;47090947]why did you even mention something about feminism with an event that's completely irrelevant to it?[/QUOTE] It reminded me of it. The whole [I]"freedom of speech = don't talk about things I *don't* want!"[/I], and all that jazz. They are all either so ignorant or so generally stupid that they can't apply the same critical thinking they use to judge other people to themselves.

[QUOTE=Swineflu;47090888]These so called "Anti-Fascists" are extremists just like any neo-nazi is. In some cases they're even worse.[/QUOTE] Some are extremists, most are radicals. As far as I'm concerned whatever they do to get fascists and reactionaries to fuck off I'm all for it.

This incident is a great example of the horseshoe theory in action.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47090988]This incident is a great example of the horseshoe theory in action.[/QUOTE] yea but HS theory is mostly bullshit. It's based on the idea that parties that make use of out-of-center and non-liberal methods and ideologies in a liberal system are similar enough to warrant being classified close to each other. Which is obviously bullshit, because it's an analysis of praxis, not ideology, and doesn't make for meaningful distinctions between ideologies. It completely falls flat when considering liberal "extremism" and liberal radicalism in historical examples like the 1848 revolutions, the French revolution, Polish resistance against Germany, etc, where violence was a method for establishing liberalism in the face of monarchy, fascism, etc. Further, any comparison between far left and far right in terms of qualitative similarities is pretty silly because it only works for extremely narrow bands of left and right ideology and only for some cherry-picked, if not historically notable, examples, almost entirely citing the likeness of Stalin and post-Stalin USSR politics and fascism, which only makes sense at the most shallow level and completely ignores ideology, which is what the left-right dichotomy intends to measure, and what HS theory is supposed to counter or replace.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47090984']Some are extremists, most are radicals. As far as I'm concerned whatever they do to get fascists and reactionaries to fuck off I'm all for it.[/QUOTE] You could disagree with a racist as much as you want -if that's the case, we share the sentiment-, but they have to respect everyone's right to freedom of speech. This is a great error of judgement, they should have thought about their university's reputation before doing such a thing. This was supposed to promote open debate, which means inviting people with opposing points of view... the best way to expose them to public scrutiny. They were *not* supposed to outright censor them like this, it's very counter-productive, and a slippery slope - just refer to the horseshoe theory again, they might as well be labeled "nascent fascists".

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47090984']Some are extremists, most are radicals. As far as I'm concerned whatever they do to get fascists and reactionaries to fuck off I'm all for it.[/QUOTE] I don't get this You obviously don't like fascists because you want them to fuck off, but you say that anti-fascists should be able to do anything so as to make fascists go away, would that perhaps include violence, one of the traits of fascism?

Oh shit, it was yesterday? Dammit, should have gone down to watch the show with some popcorn. The president of the student union even sent out an email regarding this protest. What a fucking joke.

[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;47090981]It reminded me of it. The whole [I]"freedom of speech = don't talk about things I *don't* want!"[/I], and all that jazz. They are all either so ignorant or so generally stupid that they can't apply the same critical thinking they use to judge other people to themselves.[/QUOTE] seems like you are using this thread to boost your dumb anti-feminist views while also saying anti-facist shouldn't be allowed to protest

Friendly reminder that a debate about abortion at Christchurch College was also shut down by a group of raging liberals: [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11239437/Oxford-students-shut-down-abortion-debate.-Free-speech-is-under-assault-on-campus.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47091086]I don't get this You obviously don't like fascists because you want them to fuck off, but you say that anti-fascists should be able to do anything so as to make fascists go away, would that perhaps include violence, one of the traits of fascism?[/QUOTE] Violence is not a trait of any particular ideology, it's part of all*. Violence is and was a tenet of every ideology except for pacifism, and even then you can make a reasonable argument that pacifist idols employed violence. I'm not going to pretend that I think everyone should be granted a platform in society, I'm openly biased, and I do think that anti-fascists are in the moral right when using violent tactics against fascists when it's called for (i.e. breaking up rallies or combating politically powerful or similarly violent fascist groups like Golden Dawn). [I]However[/I], I do not expect protection for these act, and I definitely don't believe that it should be expected that non-liberal views will be protected in liberalism. It's pretty simple: I think fascist should fuck off because I'm anti-fascist, and it wouldn't surprise me if fascists and liberals would think the same of my position, and I don't expect that. If they give my faction a platform, alright I'll use it, but if they don't, then I expect it. That doesn't mean my faction is going to be accepting of other platforms just because they give my faction one. long and short of it is that I say they should be okay with that because imo they're right, not because it should be acceptable in liberal society. *while fascism is unique in that it advocates violence as a part of society, using violence as a praxis or method is not unique

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47091035']yea but HS theory is mostly bullshit. It's based on the idea that parties that make use of out-of-center and non-liberal methods and ideologies in a liberal system are similar enough to warrant being classified close to each other. Which is obviously bullshit, because it's an analysis of praxis, not ideology, and doesn't make for meaningful distinctions between ideologies. It completely falls flat when considering liberal "extremism" and liberal radicalism in historical examples like the 1848 revolutions, the French revolution, Polish resistance against Germany, etc, where violence was a method for establishing liberalism in the face of monarchy, fascism, etc. Further, any comparison between far left and far right in terms of qualitative similarities is pretty silly because it only works for extremely narrow bands of left and right ideology and only for some cherry-picked, if not historically notable, examples, almost entirely citing the likeness of Stalin and post-Stalin USSR politics and fascism, which only makes sense at the most shallow level and completely ignores ideology, which is what the left-right dichotomy intends to measure, and what HS theory is supposed to counter or replace.[/QUOTE] Talking about others cherrypicking while you only point out left-wing movements that fit your theory? The entire idea of horseshoe theory is that extremes have more in common with other extremes than with those you consider actual examples of Liberalism. In the case of the French revolution they were so set in installing Liberalism that they executed thousands of people who they deemed counter-revolutionaries, same as the Soviets did. In the pursuit of said Liberalism and Freedom the extreme becomes intolerant of anything not like itself and becomes authoritarian just as if it were Fascist. That is what horseshoe theory is about, that ideology is lost when you place protecting that ideology above all else, that when you permit anything to be done in pursuit of your goal and become just as bad as the evil you were fighting.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;47091137]seems like you are using this thread to boost your dumb anti-feminist views while also saying anti-facist shouldn't be allowed to protest[/QUOTE] Couldn't care less about those things. No need to over-analyze anything, really... I'm an equal opportunity, gender-blind cunt.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;47091184]Talking about others cherrypicking while you only point out left-wing movements that fit your theory? The entire idea of horseshoe theory is that extremes have more in common with other extremes than with those you consider actual examples of Liberalism. In the case of the French revolution they were so set in installing Liberalism that they executed thousands of people who they deemed counter-revolutionaries, same as the Soviets did. In the pursuit of said Liberalism and Freedom the extreme becomes intolerant of anything not like itself and becomes authoritarian just as if it were Fascist. That is what horseshoe theory is about, that ideology is lost when you place protecting that ideology above all else, that when you permit anything to be done in pursuit of your goal and become just as bad as the evil you were fighting.[/QUOTE] "extreme" ideologies that are completely different except that they aren't liberal are similar enough for liberals to be considered very similar? And as far as liberalism, the use of violence and authority is more of a norm but in less direct ways. One of the most pervasive criticisms of liberalism from its implementation, both classical and modern and neo, is the use of coercion and oppression as a replacement for violence, and the use of violence and authority when liberalism is threatened. This is historically prevalent- liberalism is just as violent as any other when it comes down to the survival of the ideology. Authoritarianism and the use of violence does not make any particular ideology. Of all the tenets of fascism and necessary markers to hit to even becomes close, the use of violence to achieve fascism isn't even on the list- although fascism is unique in that the empowerment of violence through conflict and the use of coercion and oppression in place of violence are core tenets. But to say this is at all like, say, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism, is absolutely ridiculous. HS theory has no basis in reality and is an extremely shallow liberal outlook on ideology. "Just as bad as the evil you were fighting"- yea no shit, societies/states/ruling classes enforce their will through violence and do awful things. The parties outside of the power structure respond with violence and awful things. Repeat. HS theory provides no meaningful analysis or classification because it does not account for actual differences in ideology, praxis, etc, but instead states that the use of violence is bad because it's violent. This means that either HS theory adjusts to say that [I]any[/I] ideology that uses violence is as bad as any other ideology, like you're saying, which is nonsense because it doesn't account for moral or utilitarian differences in end goal, rendering it a useless analysis, [I]or[/I] it says only [I]non-liberal[/I] ideologies that use violence- which are currently those outside of the power structure- are equally bad, and therefore the theory is liberal biased hogwash and provides no meaningful metric or analysis.

[QUOTE=Antdawg;47091086]I don't get this You obviously don't like fascists because you want them to fuck off, but you say that anti-fascists should be able to do anything so as to make fascists go away, would that perhaps include violence, one of the traits of fascism?[/QUOTE] The general idea is that it's fine to get your hands a little dirty if it's for a "good cause." If intentionally being massive hypocrites and assholes results in destroying the opposition, than future generations will reap the benefits while only softly bemoaning the rights they trampled.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47091227']"extreme" ideologies that are completely different except that they aren't liberal are similar enough for liberals to be considered very similar? And as far as liberalism, the use of violence and authority is more of a norm but in less direct ways. One of the most pervasive criticisms of liberalism from its implementation, both classical and modern and neo, is the use of coercion and oppression as a replacement for violence, and the use of violence and authority when liberalism is threatened. This is historically prevalent- liberalism is just as violent as any other when it comes down to the survival of the ideology. Authoritarianism and the use of violence does not make any particular ideology. Of all the tenets of fascism and necessary markers to hit to even becomes close, the use of violence to achieve fascism isn't even on the list- although fascism is unique in that the empowerment of violence through conflict and the use of coercion and oppression in place of violence are core tenets. But to say this is at all like, say, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism, is absolutely ridiculous. HS theory has no basis in reality and is an extremely shallow liberal outlook on ideology. "Just as bad as the evil you were fighting"- yea no shit, societies/states/ruling classes enforce their will through violence and do awful things. The parties outside of the power structure respond with violence and awful things. Repeat. HS theory provides no meaningful analysis or classification because it does not account for actual differences in ideology, praxis, etc, but instead states that the use of violence is bad because it's violent. This means that either HS theory adjusts to say that [I]any[/I] ideology that uses violence is as bad as any other ideology, like you're saying, which is nonsense because it doesn't account for moral or utilitarian differences in end goal, rendering it a useless analysis, [I]or[/I] it says only [I]non-liberal[/I] ideologies that use violence- which are currently those outside of the power structure- are equally bad, and therefore the theory is liberal biased hogwash and provides no meaningful metric or analysis.[/QUOTE] Whether it is through violence or coercion, suppression of dissent is still suppression of dissent. As you say authoritarianism is not the core of any particular ideology, it is the result of that ideology being defended and enforced beyond any moral justification. If you're up for utilitarianism then it is not any ideology that uses violence, it is when that violence far outweighs the good that the end goal would achieve. That is where the two extremes become similar, their allowance of anything and everything with the claim that the ends justify the means. The finer points of ideology may vary significantly, but while they still employ unjustified means of furthering and protecting themselves they resemble each other more than any moderate movement.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47091227']"extreme" ideologies that are completely different except that they aren't liberal are similar enough for liberals to be considered very similar? And as far as liberalism, the use of violence and authority is more of a norm but in less direct ways. One of the most pervasive criticisms of liberalism from its implementation, both classical and modern and neo, is the use of coercion and oppression as a replacement for violence, and the use of violence and authority when liberalism is threatened. This is historically prevalent- liberalism is just as violent as any other when it comes down to the survival of the ideology. Authoritarianism and the use of violence does not make any particular ideology. Of all the tenets of fascism and necessary markers to hit to even becomes close, the use of violence to achieve fascism isn't even on the list- although fascism is unique in that the empowerment of violence through conflict and the use of coercion and oppression in place of violence are core tenets. But to say this is at all like, say, Leninism or Marxism-Leninism, is absolutely ridiculous. HS theory has no basis in reality and is an extremely shallow liberal outlook on ideology. "Just as bad as the evil you were fighting"- yea no shit, societies/states/ruling classes enforce their will through violence and do awful things. The parties outside of the power structure respond with violence and awful things. Repeat. HS theory provides no meaningful analysis or classification because it does not account for actual differences in ideology, praxis, etc, but instead states that the use of violence is bad because it's violent. This means that either HS theory adjusts to say that [I]any[/I] ideology that uses violence is as bad as any other ideology, like you're saying, which is nonsense because it doesn't account for moral or utilitarian differences in end goal, rendering it a useless analysis, [I]or[/I] it says only [I]non-liberal[/I] ideologies that use violence- which are currently those outside of the power structure- are equally bad, and therefore the theory is liberal biased hogwash and provides no meaningful metric or analysis.[/QUOTE] what the fuck are you talking about? are you trying to blame governments for not disarming and letting themselves be removed from power in the face of an opposition?

[quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/dR5QlFL.jpg[/Img][/quote] Is that Lennie James, the actor in the background?

Freedom of speech means that you have the right to make a statement, not that it deserves a platform to be made from. Ideas are entitled to their own existence and nothing else. You can say and think whatever you want, but it's up to the people you're speaking to to decide whether your ramblings deserve their endorsement.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47091624]Freedom of speech means that you have the right to make a statement, not that it deserves a platform to be made from. Ideas are entitled to their own existence and nothing else. You can say and think whatever you want, but it's up to the people you're speaking to to decide whether your ramblings deserve their endorsement.[/QUOTE] Thank you! I came into the thread to say the same thing and I'm glad someone beat me to the punch. Obviously Vice is not the best source for news of this kind (or perhaps news of any kind) but still people seem to have a tough time grasping what freedom of speech actually means. Why was there no outrage months/years ago when those bikers were drowning out WBC pickets with their engine noises?

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];47091155']Violence is not a trait of any particular ideology, it's part of all*. Violence is and was a tenet of every ideology except for pacifism, and even then you can make a reasonable argument that pacifist idols employed violence. I'm not going to pretend that I think everyone should be granted a platform in society, I'm openly biased, and I do think that anti-fascists are in the moral right when using violent tactics against fascists when it's called for (i.e. breaking up rallies or combating politically powerful or similarly violent fascist groups like Golden Dawn). [I]However[/I], I do not expect protection for these act, and I definitely don't believe that it should be expected that non-liberal views will be protected in liberalism. It's pretty simple: I think fascist should fuck off because I'm anti-fascist, and it wouldn't surprise me if fascists and liberals would think the same of my position, and I don't expect that. If they give my faction a platform, alright I'll use it, but if they don't, then I expect it. That doesn't mean my faction is going to be accepting of other platforms just because they give my faction one. long and short of it is that I say they should be okay with that because imo they're right, not because it should be acceptable in liberal society. *while fascism is unique in that it advocates violence as a part of society, using violence as a praxis or method is not unique[/QUOTE] This is a rather written out long for for saying you think its justified for people to use violence against others political ideologies you don't like. I do not see the difference between you and a fascist, other than fascists using your philosophy to further reach their end goals (and make your political ideologies childlike, naive and violent.)

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;47091624]Freedom of speech means that you have the right to make a statement, not that it deserves a platform to be made from. Ideas are entitled to their own existence and nothing else. You can say and think whatever you want, but it's up to the people you're speaking to to decide whether your ramblings deserve their endorsement.[/QUOTE] Uhm, the people in the demonstration were barring entry from the people who actually wanted to hear her speech. People obviously decided her ramblings needed hearing, some people just disagreed so much that they decided they had the right to make the choice for everyone else. Don't get me wrong, Le Pen is a cunt, but come on, this is an actual case of people trying to censor free speech.

I didn't know Vice wrote such terribly biased opinion pieces since having a further read into it, this Philip Kleinfeld needs to reevaluate what he's doing to his employees website - especially when he's glorifying the actions of these people on his twitter: [url]https://twitter.com/pkleinfeld[/url].

[QUOTE=Vasili;47092168]This is a rather written out long for for saying you think its justified for people to use violence against others political ideologies you don't like. I do not see the difference between you and a fascist, other than fascists using your philosophy to further reach their end goals (and make your political ideologies childlike, naive and violent.)[/QUOTE] Saying that everyone who acts violent regardless of their agenda is nonsense, because then you agree with people who call police who acts against them fascist as well. [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] Saboteurs all over Third Reich territory who blew up munition trains? Facsists? American and Soviet armies pushing into Europe during Second World War? Fascists? Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State as we speak? Fascists? [editline]7th February 2015[/editline] Yeah, from the liberal point of view you can throw all non-liberals into one bag and mark them as the enemy of the society if you want, but that's your arbitrary choice of dismissing all ideology that doesn't agree with ideology of yours, being ignorant to rather drastic differences between them.

What are these protestors afraid of? It's not like Marine Le Pen is just going to start spouting Fascism and suddenly everyone in the crowd starts applauding.