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

Gregor Samsa

briany wrote: »

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.

The fact that it’s total and utter bollox is where their argument would fall down, regardless of the strength of their convictions (and I would question if many of them making the claim truly believe that the election was fraudulent. An awful lot of it smacks of cynical opportunism to me).

Making up an imaginary fraudulent election and then attempting to violently force the government to accept the losing incumbent as a legitimate ruler is not in any way, shape or form a defence of democracy. The attack on democracy begins with the lie their actions were founded upon, and continues from there.

Billy Mays

Proud boys just wanted to have a chat with their representatives on Jan 6th iirc

Sand

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 HK protestors assaulted Hong Kongs legislative council - a sacred temple of democracy - back in May 2020 while it was in session, full of elected politicians debating their peoples democratic wishes. The attack forced HK's elected leaders to flee in terror. And lets not forget these people stormed and occupied the same legislature back in 2019. Insurrection and terrorism, right?

The establishment in China and Canada have found the same solution to domestic dissent - call them terrorists and then repress them under anti-terrorism laws. What is demonstrated by actions like this is that people in Canada are no more or no less free than those in China/Hong Kong if we take freedom to mean the freedom to dissent from the establishment ideology.

How about Navalny in Russia by the way? Do you think its wrong for him to be harassed and repressed by the Russian government?

Gregor Samsa

Again, it's a blatantly false equivalence.

The storming of the Hong Kong LegCo assembly (in July 2019) was in reaction to an actual law that was about to be enacted that would allow people from Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China, and thus face Chinese law without the protection of Hong Kong law. This extradition law was not in any way sought by Hong Kong citizens, but solely by Beijing. The storming was an action designed and intended to protect democracy from catastrophic erosion, and unilateral interference from an external power.

The storming of the Capitol was based upon the blatant untruth and outright lie that the US Presidential election was fundamentally and deliberately fraudulently swung by a cabal of Democrat officials, intent on illegally keeping Donald Trump from the Presidency. It was an action designed and intended to usurp democracy, and undo a valid, democratic election.

There is absolutley no equivalence between the motivations behind both actions.

Sand

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

.The storming of the Hong Kong LegCo assembly...The storming of the Capitol ...

There is absolutley no equivalence between the motivations behind both actions.

Well, you described them both as 'stormings'. The same action. The only difference I can see is you approve of one group's aims and disapprove of the other group's aims. I wont criticize you for your simplistic Friends = Good, Enemies = Bad politics, but why do you think anyone else should be convinced? China and Canada judged both actions as equivalent. You did too.

Go on though, about Navalny. Is he a democratic reformer oppressed by the Russian government in your eyes?

Gregor Samsa

Sand wrote: »

Well, you described them both as 'stormings'. The same action. The only difference I can see is you approve of one group's aims and disapprove of the other group's aims.

So eating a banana and eating a baby are both the same things in your eyes? Same action, according to your simplistic analysis which only deals with the superficial.

Sand

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

So eating a banana and eating a baby are both the same things in your eyes? Same action, according to your simplistic analysis which only deals with the superficial.

Both the HK legislative council and the capitol building are legislatures where the elected representatives of the people debate and make the law. So its not just the same action, it is the same target.

Look, when we both know where the difference is. The media told you the HK protestors were good. And that the Capitol protestors were bad. That is the difference.

Gregor Samsa

Sand wrote: »

Look, when we both know where the difference is. The media told you the HK protestors were good. And that the Capitol protestors were bad. That is the difference.

No, the difference is that democrats and fascists are not equivalent. It’s not an unusual or controversial view, unless you’re swallowing the propaganda of the latter.

dwayneshintzy

Sand wrote: »

The HK protestors assaulted Hong Kongs legislative council - a sacred temple of democracy - back in May 2020 while it was in session, full of elected politicians debating their peoples democratic wishes. The attack forced HK's elected leaders to flee in terror. And lets not forget these people stormed and occupied the same legislature back in 2019. Insurrection and terrorism, right?

The establishment in China and Canada have found the same solution to domestic dissent - call them terrorists and then repress them under anti-terrorism laws. What is demonstrated by actions like this is that people in Canada are no more or no less free than those in China/Hong Kong if we take freedom to mean the freedom to dissent from the establishment ideology.

How about Navalny in Russia by the way? Do you think its wrong for him to be harassed and repressed by the Russian government?

Legco was stormed in May 2020? What exactly are you talking about?


The only storming that I know of was in 2019, and Legco was not in session. Getting some very basic facts wrong doesn't imply you know what you're talking about, really...

biko

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.

Surely by that definition, PETA should also be on the list?

I don't like the Proud Boys but they haven't engaged in a terrorist campaign claiming the lives of civilians with the aim of destabilising a nation. This watering down of language only helps governments to crack down on opinions that don't align, and considering the range of powers assigned to governments in dealing with terrorism, that gives a government a lot of leeway in holding down those opinions.

Sand wrote:

The establishment in China and Canada have found the same solution to domestic dissent - call them terrorists and then repress them under anti-terrorism laws. What is demonstrated by actions like this is that people in Canada are no more or no less free than those in China/Hong Kong if we take freedom to mean the freedom to dissent from the establishment ideology.

Pretty much.

The difference is that western democracy has been given some kind of sainthood value. Western governments would never behave in the same manner as China would... conveniently ignoring the existence of Guantanamo Bay and the wide range of excesses that went on there in the name of anti-terrorism.

Carfacemandog

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely by that definition, PETA should also be on the list?

I don't like the Proud Boys but they haven't engaged in a terrorist campaign claiming the lives of civilians with the aim of destabilising a nation. This watering down of language only helps governments to crack down on opinions that don't align, and considering the range of powers assigned to governments in dealing with terrorism, that gives a government a lot of leeway in holding down those opinions.



Pretty much.

The difference is that western democracy has been given some kind of sainthood value. Western governments would never behave in the same manner as China would... conveniently ignoring the existence of Guantanamo Bay and the wide range of excesses that went on there in the name of anti-terrorism.

Key difference in HK vs Jan 6th was that the former began as protests and became more violent as the police escalated, while the former was intended to be violent by many attendees (Proud Boys some of the most prominent among them) before it even took place, including lots of talk of murdering the very politicians they then went trying to hunt down as it was well known almost every member of Congress was going to be in the building at that specific time on that specific day as they were finalising the last process of said election.

Their goal was to overthrow the US government, subvert their democratic process in their country, and (re)install the person who had lost the election that the courts repeatedly found had not had it "stolen" from him. In the process they partook in significant, planned violence (to be expected from them at this point) resulting in over 60 police being hospitalised and one being beaten to death with an American flag. That's a pretty definitive attempt to destabilize a nation, and appears to have been the catalyst that caused every member of Canadian government, Liberal, Conservative and otherwise, in agreeing that they should be designated as a terrorist threat.