Proud Boys declared Terrorist Organisation by Canada *Mod Warning in OP*

I recall reading that the US can't label domestic groups as terrorists. Is that true?

If so, does a foreign nation labelling them as terrorists offer a loophole of sorts?

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I recall reading that the US can't label domestic groups as terrorists. Is that true?

If so, does a foreign nation labelling them as terrorists offer a loophole of sorts?

Well we don’t have a proper domestic terrorism law. Our terrorism laws deal with international terrorism. Crazy

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Well we don’t have a proper domestic terrorism law. Our terrorism laws deal with international terrorism. Crazy

But since the Proud Boys are now (sort of) international terrorists, does this allow the US to treat them as such?

Biker79

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yesterday it was antifa, today it's rambling on about the value of various jobs. Anything to distract from what the thread is about.

Talking about the value of various jobs establishes the premise of why groups like The Proud Boys form in the first place.

Which is a decline in traditional masculinity and its usefulness. Otherwise referred to by male feminists and the like, as toxic masculinity.

At least they have balls to present themselves as a coherent organisation. Unlike other groups , who operate as a group but also magically don't exist as a group.

Schrodinger's Activists I guess you could say.

dan1895

Biker79 wrote: »

Talking about the value of various jobs establishes the premise of why groups like The Proud Boys form in the first place.

Which is a decline in traditional masculinity and its usefulness. Otherwise referred to by male feminists and the like, as toxic masculinity.

At least they have balls to present themselves as a coherent organisation. Unlike other groups , who operate as a group but also magically don't exist as a group.

Schrodinger's Activists I guess you could say.

You seem to have a lot of admiration for them.

Necro

Mod:

Biker79 don't post in this thread again

briany

Biker79 wrote: »

Talking about the value of various jobs establishes the premise of why groups like The Proud Boys form in the first place.

Which is a decline in traditional masculinity and its usefulness. Otherwise referred to by male feminists and the like, as toxic masculinity.

At least they have balls to present themselves as a coherent organisation. Unlike other groups , who operate as a group but also magically don't exist as a group.

Schrodinger's Activists I guess you could say.

Thing about the Proud Boys' view of masculinity is that it's pathetically narrow and reeks of insecurity. Their idea of being a man is no different to being in a hooligan firm - drinking, fighting, f*cking, etc. The thing they've added to that formula is perhaps a greater consumption of beard wax.

donaghs

briany wrote: »

Thing about the Proud Boys' view of masculinity is that it's pathetically narrow and reeks of insecurity. Their idea of being a man is no different to being in a hooligan firm - drinking, fighting, f*cking, etc. The thing they've added to that formula is perhaps a greater consumption of beard wax.

Yes , but does that make them terrorists?
Maybe they are, but I’d like to know exactly why.

Gregor Samsa

donaghs wrote: »

Yes , but does that make them terrorists?
Maybe they are, but I’d like to know exactly why.

Here’s the explanation as per the Canadian Department of Public Safety.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx#510

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

But since the Proud Boys are now (sort of) international terrorists, does this allow the US to treat them as such?

There is even an Irish branch, and the founder is a Canadian. So they should be able to label them as terrorists, as they are International. So the usual reasoning shouldn't really apply.

Gregor Samsa

Overheal wrote: »

Well we don’t have a proper domestic terrorism law. Our terrorism laws deal with international terrorism. Crazy

Ireland’s dedicated international terrorist laws were only put in place because we already had very robust laws against domestic terrorist organisations under the Offences Against The State Act.

Under it, organisations acting within the state can be declared unlawful, and membership of them criminalised, for a variety of reasons.

The international terrorist legislation is to curtail support for organisations that don’t act within, or are not deemed a danger to, the state, which is why it’s separate.

Remember, we’ve had plenty of experience with domestic terrorist groups in the recent past. We’ve a whole block of Portlaoise prison dedicated to holding them.

ExMachina1000

What reason did the Canadian government give for labelling them as domestic terrorists?

Is it because some of their memories were involved in the incoming in Washington?

Wibbs

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Here’s the explanation as per the Canadian Department of Public Safety.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx#510

Seems straightforward enough alright. They certainly need watching. With trump gone from office you'd hope that will take some of the wind out of their sails, but maybe not as a helluva lot of Americans did vote for him and a fair percentage of them will continue to look to outlets for their positions, democratic or nuttier ones.

suicide_circus

Wibbs wrote: »

Seems straightforward enough alright.

It's certainly straightforward but i'd have some reservations as to it's accuracy. Seems like a slight over reach from a super progressive government who are spooked that the founder is a canadian.

Wibbs

It seems there's overreach and overreaction everywhere these days. Not just in politics, but especially in politics and especially with US political philosophies that are infecting the rest of the western world with their divisive nonsense. So yeah these eejits certainly need watching and watching closely. Are they a terrorist organisation? That's less clear, but if being labelled such means the beady eye is on them then fine.

suicide_circus

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems there's overreach and overreaction everywhere these days. Not just in politics, but especially in politics and especially with US political philosophies that are infecting the rest of the western world with their nonsense. So yeah these eejits certainly need watching and watching closely. Are they a terrorist organisation? That's less clear, but if being labelled such means the beady eye is on them then fine.

Hmm yeah maybe. I do think the terrorist designation shouldnt be bandied about too lightly. Leaving aside the somewhat homoerotic and purile "Proud Boys", i can see why rightwing folk might band together when they see marxist and anarchist organisations not only getting a free pass but being actively lauded by the great and the good.

TomTomTim

Wibbs wrote: »

Seems straightforward enough alright. They certainly need watching. With trump gone from office you'd hope that will take some of the wind out of their sails, but maybe not as a helluva lot of Americans did vote for him and a fair percentage of them will continue to look to outlets for their positions, democratic or nuttier ones.

It's a whole bunch of claims, with no evidence cited. The only thing in that statement that could be viewed as factual is the part about the Capitol Hill riots.

The Proud Boys is a neo-fascist organization that engages in political violence and was formed in 2016. Members of the group espouse misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and/or white supremacist ideologies and associate with white supremacist groups. The Proud Boys consists of semi-autonomous chapters located in the United States (U.S.), Canada, and internationally. The group and its members have openly encouraged, planned, and conducted violent activities against those they perceive to be opposed to their ideology and political beliefs. The group regularly attends Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests as counter-protesters, often engaging in violence targeting BLM supporters. On January 6, 2021, the Proud Boys played a pivotal role in the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Leaders of the group planned their participation by setting out objectives, issuing instructions, and directing members during the insurrection. The leader of the Proud Boys was arrested two days before the insurrection as part of a stated effort by U.S. law enforcement to apprehend individuals who were planning to travel to the D.C. area with intentions to cause violence.

Everything highlighted is unsubstantiated. Any claims as such made in the legal sphere, should have lots of supporting evidence.

Carfacemandog

suicide_circus wrote: »

It's certainly straightforward but i'd have some reservations as to it's accuracy. Seems like a slight over reach from a super progressive government who are spooked that the founder is a canadian.

It does bear mentioning that the vote to do so was unanimous, including the 120 Canadian Conservative MPs in their House of Commons.

Carfacemandog

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It does bear mentioning that the vote to do so was unanimous, including the 120 Canadian Conservative MPs in their House of Commons.

RADICALFARLEFTISTSOCIALISTCOMMUNISTMARXISTANTIFIABLMEXTREMISTS in disguise.

Wibbs

TomTomTim wrote: »

It's a whole bunch of claims, with no evidence cited. The only thing in that statement that could be viewed as factual is the part about the Capitol Hill riots.

Well just that bit alone where there was an attack on the democratic process of a state should have the beady eye squarely on them. Like I said I'm less sure about labelling them a terrorist organisation in the mould of the UVF/IRA etc. That part does seem like overreach alright. Though a minority of semi dangerous divisive numpties amped up on goofballs and idiocy is a bit of a mouthful. Though a label I'd apply to any and all of the semi dangerous divisive numpties amped up on goofballs and idiocy of all stripes, left/right/whateveryou'rehavingyourself out there. Pretty much all of them born from the divisive womb that is the current American political landscape which is infecting the rest of us. After we're finished with covid we should look to a vaccine for that. It's long overdue.

suicide_circus

Carfacemandog wrote: »

It does bear mentioning that the vote to do so was unanimous, including the 120 Canadian Conservative MPs in their House of Commons.

Well i wouldn't expect any MP, Conservative or otherwise, to choose proud boys as their hill to die on

biko

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Here’s the explanation as per the Canadian Department of Public Safety.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx#510

To be a terrorist you need to be a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
This fits the Proud Boys as well as the many other groups on that list.

Gregor Samsa

TomTomTim wrote: »

It's a whole bunch of claims, with no evidence cited. The only thing in that statement that could be viewed as factual is the part about the Capitol Hill riots.



Everything highlighted is unsubstantiated. Any claims as such made in the legal sphere, should have lots of supporting evidence.

The purpose of that document from the Canadian government isn’t to provide evidence, it’s to provide a summary. So it in itself is not the entire argument.

What we’re all also missing from the equation is what Canadian law states regarding the definition of a terrorist organisation is, and the criteria for determining how to designate one. I’m not vested enough in the argument either way to go researching that, so there a certain amount that we have to take at face value (unless you want to delve further into the specific law and process).

I’d say that some of what you’ve bolded is in fact substantiated. Particularly the bit about encouraging political violence. Getting into physical confrontations with political opponents is one of the founding principles of the Proud Boys, and the stated requirement for official “fourth degree” membership, as per their own rules and public statements.

Overheal

So here’s the prosecution in the US - 21 pages of it, for just one of their members in case you’re wondering “well what did they even do anyway”

https://lawandcrime.com/u-s-capitol-siege/proud-boys-spent-weeks-planning-the-u-s-capitol-siege-leader-ethan-nordean-poses-a-serious-risk-of-flight-prosecutors/

“Whereas some of these rioters traveled to Washington, D.C., individually, a number of extremist and militia groups coordinated together to gather in Washington, expressing in advance their intent to interfere with the Electoral College certification,” prosecutors said in reference to Joe Biden‘s selection as the nation’s 46th president. “One such extremist group was the Proud Boys.”

Along with coordinating funding for body armor and weapons and communication equipment, one member also was found to be in possession of a passport belonging to some rando bearing their resemblance. Naturally prosecutors are seeking to have his bail denied as he poses a flight risk.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

RADICALFARLEFTISTSOCIALISTCOMMUNISTMARXISTANTIFIABLMEXTREMISTS in disguise.

Neoliberals. 'Conservatism' is simply a variation of neoliberalism, same as progressives. They certainly haven't conserved anything.

Sand

biko wrote: »

To be a terrorist you need to be a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
This fits the Proud Boys as well as the many other groups on that list.

It fits any group really. While 'terrorist' has always been a difficult term to pin down, with Canada watering it down to fit Proud Boys, they really aren't in any position to criticize governments like China or Russia when they deal with their own dissidents in a similar manner.

Gregor Samsa

Sand wrote: »

It fits any group really. While 'terrorist' has always been a difficult term to pin down, with Canada watering it down to fit Proud Boys, they really aren't in any position to criticize governments like China or Russia when they deal with their own dissidents in a similar manner.

A classic example of false equivalence.

Sand

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

A classic example of false equivalence.

Tell me more about how the violent HK protestors are freedom fighters, and the violent PB protestors are terrorists. Canada and China have found the same solution to internal dissent.

Gregor Samsa

Sand wrote: »

Tell me more about how the violent HK protestors are freedom fighters, and the violent PB protestors are terrorists. Canada and China have found the same solution to internal dissent.

One country (Canada) has found a way of dealing with an organisation that rejects democracy, one (China) has found a way of dealing with an organisation that wishes to protect democracy.

Lumping the two together simply as “internal dissent” is the false equivalence. Assuming, of course, that one supports democracy. If you don’t, and you are vested its rejection, then maybe you’ll have a different view.

briany

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

One country (Canada) has found a way of dealing with an organisation that rejects democracy, one (China) has found a way of dealing with an organisation that wishes to protect democracy.

Lumping the two together simply as “internal dissent” is the false equivalence. Assuming, of course, that one supports democracy. If you don’t, and you are vested its rejection, then maybe you’ll have a different view.

The Proud Boys involved with Jan 6th would probably have argued that they were pro-Democracy, and their breach of the Capitol was an effort to overturn the fraudulent election result and put the real winner in place. Not that I'm saying this isn't total b*llocks, but that's what they'd argue.