| |
12-12-2005, 07:19 PM
|
 | Banned | | Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,363
| |
 Quote: |
Originally Posted by Obsidian I have no issue with non violent political protests, so long as they are not intentionally antagonizing. Anytime someone runs up and spits at a policemen secure in the knowledge the police won't beat them is taking their health into their own hands. I'm equally opposed to police using fear tactics and tear gas to suppress non violent crowds.
In this specific case, I'm offended the women had the audacity to use the names of the fallen to further her political cause. People are entitled to their political views, even the ones to go and fight overseas for what they believe. Who is she to change what they died for? | I am not quite sure what you are getting at. You say that you have no issue with non-violent political protest, so long as it is not intentionally antagonising. Do you mean that it's OK so long as the person does not assault someone, which you seem to imply by your example of spitting at a policeman. If so I think we are agreed.
You go on to say that you are offended by this specific case. I am not sure whether you mean that is an example of being antagonistic or not. If you do mean that then I do not agree. I think that freedom of speech is important. It will offend some people sometimes, inevitably. That is why it has to be defended.
You say that she has used the names of the fallen to further her political cause. I am afraid that is also what the government has done. I cannot accept that only the government has the right to do this. Those deaths mean different things to different people.
 |
Linear Mode
