Treat Far-Right Terror as the Threat It Is

[jkjk]

Sorry, I don’t have time to read four articles. Can you summarize?

1. There are many systemic issues driving inequality and intolerance. Much of this is driven by local dynamics that predate / are unrelated to Trump. It is important to address underlying, systemic injustice and inequality, not just focus on high profile incidents and attribute them to Trump.

2. "Hate crimes" is a broad category. You have to look closer at the statistics to see what is actually going on. For instance, hate crimes against Muslims actually fell, while hate crimes against Jews increased significantly and accounts for much of "the rise in hate crimes"

3. People don't like to talk about hate crimes against Jews, because they don't conform to the easy narrative of far right white supremacists as the oppressors. For instance, "During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime [in New York City] has been associated with a far right-wing group.” The media cares about hate crimes that fit their narrative, and hate crimes against Jews don't support that narrative.

4. There is a tendency for extremist groups to become more radicalized based on the words and actions of other groups. There are a number of similarities between radical Islamists and far-right extremists. These groups feed off each other and in fact depend on each other. In order to solve the problem, you must deal with both. In order to do so, you have to be willing to sit down with extremists, talk to them, and prevent them from becoming more isolated and traveling further down the path of radicalization.

 

[FireDragon76]

There's a great book Extreme Right Wing Violence and Terrorism that offers research and case studies into right wing violence. The book deals extensively with "counterjihad" and the radicalization of far right extremist groups in response to Islamist terrorism.

One of the most interesting takeaways (besides an appreciation for what actual right-wing extremism is) is that the more that extreme right wing groups feel as though they have a legitimate outlet for their voices, the less likely they are to commit acts of violence.

This is quite relevant in light of current practices in many places of shouting down and silencing voices that depart from politically correct or "socially acceptable" norms. By adopting such approaches and trying to ridicule and silence more extreme voices, we may actually be pushing extremists to see violence as the only outlet they have left.

Anyway, it's an interesting read, and in light of recent events, a relevant one.

I don't see how legitimitzing a far-right fascist party is going to make for less hate in the world and less oppression and violence, which is what we should really care about in the end. If anything, the two seems to go together as a rising tide lifting a boat.

 

[FireDragon76]

At the same time as the events in NZ, hundreds of Christians in Nigeria are being slaughtered by Moslem terrorists, but no one in the West cares, except for some religious publications and small-time Conservative websites. Certainly not CNN, NBC, etc. etc.

It doesn't fit the schema of the "Progressives" who can neither bring themselves to care so long as the victims are Christian instead of Moslem and, as well, it doesn't leave them with much of an opening for blaming it all on...you guessed it, President Trump.

The situation in Nigeria is more complicated than innocent Christians being killed by Muslim bogiemen. There's ethnic tensions, poverty, oil politics, postcolonialism, etc.

The rest of your rant is just nonsense. There are plenty of political progressives that are Christians. You will not drive a wedge between our religion and politics simply because you see paleo-conservativism and Christianity as inseperable.

 

[Albion]

The situation in Nigeria is more complicated than innocent Christians being killed by Muslim bogiemen. There's ethnic tensions, poverty, oil politics, postcolonialism, etc.

The rest of your rant is just nonsense. There are plenty of political progressives that are Christians. You will not drive a wedge between our religion and politics simply because you see paleo-conservativism and Christianity as inseperable.

Lots of jargon there. So good for you on that score. None of it, nor your fears, is related to anything I have been saying, however.

 

[jkjk]

I don't see how legitimitzing a far-right fascist party is going to make for less hate in the world and less oppression and violence, which is what we should really care about in the end. If anything, the two seems to go together as a rising tide lifting a boat.

I guess we just have to disagree then. If hate-filled ideologies are as fallacious as people here argue they are, then why are we so afraid to allow and engage those ideas?

The foolish man builds his house on sand. When the rain comes, the waters rise, and the winds blow, the house will fall. Hate-filled ideologies are built on sand. They cannot hold up to love and reason. Why are we throwing more sand at the house when we can undermine its very foundations through love and reason?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm guessing you are driving towards freedom of speech. I'm driving towards limitations that are about vilification

That's what I'm asking about....what are these limitations and who decides them?

 

[Zoii]

That's what I'm asking about....what are these limitations and who decides them?

Its a good question - where do we draw the line - Well, of course, there are lines drawn in law eg laws concerning slander and my country has laws that state you may not verbally vilify another group with the intent to incite a crime - eg That group are [insert non-factual hate phrase] and need to be killed.

But I can't answer your question with precision: Who decides here? Can't we all decide - Cant you and I tell if someone is writing something whose sole intent is to vilify another group. As to the limitations - Well in a forum such as CF the Mods can I suggest.

But I think you are asking the bigger question around should there be limits on freedom of speech. I was at a writers festival and the Journalist John Pilger was speaking. He agreed with you that there should be no limits. Yet that concerns me. It was hate speech that drove the Rwandan genocide and others as well.

It seems too that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are responding to this and closing those who incite hate. Whats your thinking on this?

 

[FireDragon76]

I guess we just have to disagree then. If hate-filled ideologies are as fallacious as people here argue they are, then why are we so afraid to allow and engage those ideas?

The foolish man builds his house on sand. When the rain comes, the waters rise, and the winds blow, the house will fall. Hate-filled ideologies are built on sand. They cannot hold up to love and reason. Why are we throwing more sand at the house when we can undermine its very foundations through love and reason?

That sort of "engagement" tends to engender respectability, which is something those ideas simply do not deserve.

I am not implying hatred of any group is a good thing. But in this imperfect world, justice is the practical implication of love of neighbor. That is straight from American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Empty rhetoric about love is not a substitute for pursuing justice.

 

[jkjk]

That sort of "engagement" tends to engender respectability, which is something those ideas simply do not deserve.

Okay, well just keep on with your moral grandstanding then. And keep doubling down on your same failed policies.

I am not implying hatred of any group is a good thing. But in this imperfect world, justice is the practical implication of love of neighbor. That is straight from American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Empty rhetoric about love is not a substitute for pursuing justice.

That's a false dichotomy. Adopting practices based on love (ie, compassion and understanding) and pursuing justice are not mutually exclusive. Tell me, how are the War on Drugs or War on Terror working out for you? Do you really think we can arrest or kill or silence our way out of all our problems, or do we have to actually address the root causes? Tell me, do you think it is possible to effectively address root causes without compassion and understanding for those with legitimate grievences?

 

[FireDragon76]

Okay, well just keep on with your moral grandstanding then. And keep doubling down on your same failed policies.

It's not moral grandstanding to give no quarter to ideologies that dehumanize classes of human beings based on their intrinsic personal characteristics. That's just a natural consequence of accepting the dignity of every human being.

Tell me, do you think it is possible to effectively address root causes without compassion and understanding for those with legitimate grievences?

Hating other people for who God created them to be should not engender compassion. It's an evil resentment that has no place in the reign of God.

 

[jkjk]

It's not moral grandstanding to give no quarter to ideologies that dehumanize classes of human beings based on their intrinsic personal characteristics. That's just a natural consequence of accepting the dignity of every human being.

It is moral grandstanding when such practices are ineffective. If you really accept the dignity of human beings, then you do what will minimize the most amount of harm to the most amount of people. I don't know about you, but I would rather be insulted by a fringe politician that few people see as credible than be shot dead by some radicalized lunatic who we pushed to the margins.

Hating other people for who God created them to be should not engender compassion. It's an evil resentment that has no place in the reign of God.

So much for loving the sinner but hating the sin.

And this isn't the kingdom of god. It is the kingdom of man. This world requires compromise and choosing the lesser of two evils.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Its a good question - where do we draw the line - Well, of course, there are lines drawn in law eg laws concerning slander and my country has laws that state you may not verbally vilify another group with the intent to incite a crime - eg That group are [insert non-factual hate phrase] and need to be killed.

My nation has similar laws.

But I can't answer your question with precision: Who decides here? Can't we all decide - Cant you and I tell if someone is writing something whose sole intent is to vilify another group. As to the limitations - Well in a forum such as CF the Mods can I suggest.

Actually, if I were to decide...I wouldn't make laws that prohibit certain opinions.

As for "villifying a group"....what if I wrote extensively about the evils of neo-nazis? One might claim I'm villifying them...and that person would be right.

But I think you are asking the bigger question around should there be limits on freedom of speech. I was at a writers festival and the Journalist John Pilger was speaking. He agreed with you that there should be no limits. Yet that concerns me. It was hate speech that drove the Rwandan genocide and others as well.

Was it? If we could lock some people up for saying certain words....voicing certain opinions...does that really stop them from being voiced?

Or does it just ensure that it's done secretly?

It seems too that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are responding to this and closing those who incite hate. Whats your thinking on this?

Those are private platforms and they can do as they like...

I disagree with it...but they have a right to choose for themselves.

My biggest concern about the government doing this is that it should never be their domain to protect the public from ideas. It's too great a power to give to any group. Once we let that line be drawn...it's only a matter of time before it's pushed back until ideas that should never be prohibited are always prohibited.

 

[Go Braves]

At the same time as the events in NZ, hundreds of Christians in Nigeria are being slaughtered by Moslem terrorists, but no one in the West cares, except for some religious publications and small-time Conservative websites. Certainly not CNN, NBC, etc. etc.

It doesn't fit the schema of the "Progressives" who can neither bring themselves to care so long as the victims are Christian instead of Moslem and, as well, it doesn't leave them with much of an opening for blaming it all on...you guessed it, President Trump.

I'm betting that Donald Trump has Tweeted far, far, far more about Saturday Night Live than he ever has about Christians in Nigeria.

The Nigerian Army used Donald Trump's words to defend its killing of protestors throwing rocks.

The reason why Trump has been talked about in regards to NZ is that the right wing terrorist who slaughtered those innocent folks talked about him in his manifesto, praising him. That & his derogatory rhetoric about Muslims.

 

[Sparagmos]

1. There are many systemic issues driving inequality and intolerance. Much of this is driven by local dynamics that predate / are unrelated to Trump. It is important to address underlying, systemic injustice and inequality, not just focus on high profile incidents and attribute them to Trump.

2. "Hate crimes" is a broad category. You have to look closer at the statistics to see what is actually going on. For instance, hate crimes against Muslims actually fell, while hate crimes against Jews increased significantly and accounts for much of "the rise in hate crimes"

3. People don't like to talk about hate crimes against Jews, because they don't conform to the easy narrative of far right white supremacists as the oppressors. For instance, "During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime [in New York City] has been associated with a far right-wing group.” The media cares about hate crimes that fit their narrative, and hate crimes against Jews don't support that narrative.

4. There is a tendency for extremist groups to become more radicalized based on the words and actions of other groups. There are a number of similarities between radical Islamists and far-right extremists. These groups feed off each other and in fact depend on each other. In order to solve the problem, you must deal with both. In order to do so, you have to be willing to sit down with extremists, talk to them, and prevent them from becoming more isolated and traveling further down the path of radicalization.

1. I agree. No one I know is “just focusing on Trump” He was elected because of the xenophobia that already existed. And his rhetoric makes things even worse.
2.Yes. I specifically cited swasticas painted in my city...
3. I wholeheartedly disagree with this one. I think that, because of history, hate crimes against Jews strike a nerve. And I see a ton of antisemetic crap coming from the ultra right. It’s all over the white supremecist websites, Breitbart, and Fox News. A person may not be associated with a far right group to have ingested the rhetoric coming from them.
4. I agree.

 

[Sistrin]

I see your article:

Treat Far-Right Terror as the Threat It Is

And raise you five:

ISIS Beheads 50 Yazidi Sex Slaves as Parting Gift

"In a final act of depravity, fleeing ISIS beheaded 50 Yazidi sex slaves, dumping their heads into trash bins for coalition soldiers to find."

Six killed as suicide bombers in women’s clothing attack people fleeing Islamic State’s last Syria zone

"Three suicide attackers in women’s clothing killed six people leaving the last Islamic State enclave in eastern Syria on Friday in simultaneous blasts, the US-backed forces besieging the area said."

Two Israelis killed in West Bank shooting attack

"An Israeli soldier and a Rabbi were killed in a West Bank shooting attack near the Ariel Junction on Sunday.

Rabbi Ahiad Ettinger, aged 47, was shot while driving through the Ariel junction and died of his wounds this morning. The attacker, according to Palestinian media, is Omar Abu Laila, a 19-year-old from the town of Az-Zawiya."

Eight killed in blast at Somali market: official

"At least eight people have been killed after a bomb exploded at a busy livestock market in a village in southwestern Somalia's Bay region, an official has said. "

Jammu and Kashmir: Woman Special Police Officer shot dead outside her house in Shopian

"Woman SPO killed in Shopian: A woman Special Police Officer (SPO) was shot dead by suspected terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir’s Shopian district on Saturday."

Oh, and then there is this shining example of reason and logic, echoing much of emotional garbage spewed out in your OP article:

Terror-tied CAIR blames Pamela Geller for New Zealand shooting, incites to violence

"The terror tied group seeks to exploit the tragedy to impose the sharia in America. Exploiting instead of mourning, terrorist CAIR is exploiting this bloodshed to incite violence against human rights activists. They blame Trump."

 

[jkjk]

1. I agree. No one I know is “just focusing on Trump” He was elected because of the xenophobia that already existed. And his rhetoric makes things even worse.
2.Yes. I specifically cited swasticas painted in my city...
3. I wholeheartedly disagree with this one. I think that, because of history, hate crimes against Jews strike a nerve. And I see a ton of antisemetic crap coming from the ultra right. It’s all over the white supremecist websites, Breitbart, and Fox News. A person may not be associated with a far right group to have ingested the rhetoric coming from them.
4. I agree.

On #3, NYC is a liberal bastion. Liberals are committing hate crimes against Jews. Here's a quote from the New York Times:

In fact, it is the varied backgrounds of people who commit hate crimes in the city that make combating and talking about anti-Semitism in New York much harder.

A related issue is that bias stemming from longstanding ethnic tensions in the city presents complexities that many liberals have chosen simply to ignore. “When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them.” So begins an essay by James Baldwin that appeared in The New York Times in 1967 titled “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White.”

The truth is a lot of anti-Semitic rhetoric comes from Progressives. Look no further than the words of Louis Farrakahn, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Women's March leaders Tamika Mallory and Carmen Perez, etc. In that sense, there is an increasing amount of overlap between the far left and far right.

The whole Ilhan Omar contraversy is case in point. Certainly there is a difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, but they often go hand in hand. There seems to be an increasing amount of both within Progressive circles.

 

[SkyWriting]

When it comes to Hate-Speech - Yes

Can I suppress your hate that you have against them?
Or am I forced to listen?

 

[JackRT]

Being a Canadian, I trust CBC, BBC and NPR. CBC has close ties with NPR.

 

[Zoii]

Can I suppress your hate that you have against them?
Or am I forced to listen?

what is it you are being sarcastic about - Are you supportive or ambivalent towards hate speech or - think there should be a limitation? - or are you just trying to flame? what is it exactly that you believe?

 

[98cwitr]

Being a Canadian, I trust CBC, BBC and NPR. CBC has close ties with NPR.

Do you think someone like Tommy Robinson is far right?