If the same hadn't happened previously then the cops wouldn't be interfering.
Yeah, cause all she brought with her was her political beliefs right?
she was kicked out, people probably called the police, if not the police acted purely on the basis of her political convictions, the job she does and the locale she was in.
I think the cops were acting preventitively, to make sure no more provocation would happen. As it was nothing was happening
Yeh that is exactly what they were doing of course.
It's the exact same situation with Tommy Robinson, ex EDL leader. While he is also a flaming cunt on wheels, I personally think it's bullshit that he has to be arrested before arriving somewhere to speak, for the only reason that other people are out to get him.
That, is not a free country, this is after he curbed his hate speech down to barely acceptable levels. I understand of course the police forces reasoning, but it's not the right way to go about it and it sets a poor example for those who are seeking to injure or kill those they are offended by. It victimizes the white Atheist and Christian population, and makes the radical Islamists feel untouchable.
It's a poor strategy.
Horse cock. No body is afraid of going to Lakemba. I'm a white man and I could head down there and purchase their food, talk to people and generally hang around with no issues.
She was stopped explicitly because she's a white supremacist and they've had conflicts with in area before. It's a politically charged area and she's a political shit stirrer, that's all there is to it. There's no "muslamic rape gangs" or violent extremism there.
Forgive me I'm not quite sure which bit you are referring to.
Specifically the being afraid of walking around and the Muslims falling for bullshit. It's a delicate area because of the 2005 riots, it was people like Lauren Southern that started those riots and the cops clearly do not want a repeat of the situation.
They're not above criticism but there's a time and place. Being a provocative asshole in a sensitive area isn't how one should go about it.
I was being vague with the statement, I'm not saying that this happens in that town, but it does happen in many.
I have only been made aware of her existence and of that town in this thread so I'm not someone to pretend to know her or the area. But it is very similar to the Tommy Robinson case by the sounds of it, same big mouth same problem and same reaction from the police.
As shitty as her opinions and views are, the fact that she faces a high probability of physical violence if she enters the area is a problem in and of itself. It's not how we roll.
Honestly I don't really see how it's too different to calling someone a cunt randomly in a pub and expecting not to get punched.
Now you're talking my language.
It really is a fine line, but an affront to your religion is not an affront to your character, everyone has else has done a pretty good job of learning to take these things on the chin in general and learning how to respond calmly and argue your point to make the other look like an idiot (if they are being a cunt about it) is kind of a standard.
It's where the cracks start showing between the groups, and I"m not talking Muslims and Christians or Athiests or whatever. It's simply that many of these young men come from rough as fuck areas and aren't leaving that behind or minding their own actions when they migrate, whether this be first or second generation. It's the integration issue, many simply don't want to and would rather stick with their kind as they would back in their countries of birth (or parents countries of birth.)
It's normal, but unfortunately it breeds a situation where things appear to take on the form of a mob lynching rather than a debate or a defensive stance in these situations and that is exactly what this bitch is aiming to show to the world, and they usually give it to her by the sounds of it.
Like, do you believe blasphemy laws are a good idea? Do you agree policemen should arrest or prevent people from going against religion?
These are fair questions, but i feel any other answer then "no, never" is a step back, moving away from the enlightenment.
Why was this cunt allowed into the country in the first place? Should have been refused a visa like all the other extremist fucknuts we gladly keep out
Its funny how in one thread you argue semantics with society being an republic and not a democracy when it came to a majority of the population being ignored, but when your local extremist gets told to fuck off for trying to start shit, its suddenly undemocratic.
Southern has literally tried to commit mass murders. If anyone should not be allowed in public it's her and people like her, or do you think we should convert Australia back into a prison colony and Charles Manson and Ted Kaczynski walk around screaming at people?
Well that is fine if you want such actions (tho I think the allusion to Cronulla to this is pretty shoddy comparison), but I do want to remind you that this is still telling people they shouldn't go down certain public areas, and is a sign of nanny-state politics.
Uh, I think you don't understand that these two situations are quite different.
The other thread is about Representative voting, and this is about public spaces and free speech....
The cop was stopping her from going there to save potential drama. They would rather stop her then than in case of an event where she caused drama so the police would have to get called to a scene. Look at it this way, would you rather let some antifa moron go down to some kind super conservative gun store and most likely cause a scene resulting in the police getting called, or wouldn't it better to stop that from happening saving everyone's time? The chance for these kind of political idiots to stir drama and waste the public's and polices time is so high.
Also you need to realise here in Australia (and a lot of the rest of the western world afaik) we don't have an emphasis and priority on free speech as much as America. It's been like this for as long as I can remember. Our government and police force prioritise preventing a scene or some kind of shitfest over free speech (since it is in public interest as said above).
https://puu.sh/B4riW.png
well then...
Can you clarify the mass murder part? I only see them claiming to stop boats, not sink them or kill the people in them. I know the article claims that this groups "wants them to drown," but they don't cite anything for that claim. In fact, one of the only quotes from the actual group states that they specifically don't want people to drown.
I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I just don't see support for going anywhere near as far as you're going with it.
are you really that fucking dense or are you trying to start a pointless semantics argument?
You know goddamn well they wish ill upon those people.
Do you just throw the word "semantic" out there when you disagree with something? Honestly, your response is such a meaningless non-sequitur it's almost hard to respond. Here, I'll spell it out for you:
1) Person claims Southern tried to commit mass murder by citing the linked article.
2) The linked article provides zero evidence that Southern tried to commit mass murder. In fact, it provides evidence that the group did not intend to commit mass murder.
3) I point out the inconsistency.
Exactly which part of that is semantical?
If they were to stop the boats, it would've resulted in people dying due to them lacking supplies and possibly facing death from returning to where they originally came from. Which will result in death. Even though they stated they didn't want mass murder, murder was going to happen if they intervened and attempted to stop these refugee ships. They knew what will happen if they did yet they ignored it and "assisted" that they didn't want anyone to die.
So let me see if I get this straight.
If I engineer a situation in which I can cause someone's death through purposeful inaction or blockage, that's not murder? "I didn't kill you by blocking your access to life-saving medication/care - you died because of blood loss"?
Can you evidence people dying because of their actions? That seems to be a basic step getting skipped here.
Sgman91. You know damn well what will happen if they did it.
You have a finite amount of food and potable water. You have no access to food or potable water. I ensure you have no access to potable water and food and ensure you can't gain access to potable water and food.
Did I murder you? Yes/no.
How would I know that? Maybe the ship turns around. Maybe it lands somewhere else. Maybe a number of things happen. Why is it considered crazy to actually require evidence, and not speculation, when accusing someone of mass murder?
The situation:
You are at sea. There is land in front of you. You are blocked from accessing that land. You have insufficient supplies to return to wherever you came from or travel to wherever is not blocking from you land.
What options do you have?
There is evidence of refugees dying in the seas. There is evidence of refugees being turned into slaves as they return to Africa or the Middle East. There is evidence of them dying of starvation and malnourishment. There is evidence of them dying from thirst.
Like the evidence is there. You refuse to believe nothing bad will happen to the people they will try to drive away even though by the colossal amount of evidence that has been gathered throughout the time frame of the refugee crisis states otherwise.
1:100 odds on 'maybe a few people die but that doesn't make her a mass murderer - how could she know they'd die; murder requires opportunity and she wouldn't know in advance that they won't come well-stocked!'
I don't think Sgman91 is prepared to yield to your objective analysis of available evidence of the situation in that area as a case study of what might happen in this given situation. If he was prepared, he would've yielded the first time you stated that they were dying at sea.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.