@taco sounds like it could be used for million March hate rally too.
@QueerInTheCountry a march would lack the specific underlying criminality to make it a terror offence.
Marching (generally) is not illegal. Obstructing public roadways, resisting law enforcement, committing and conspiring to commit violence, treason, etc… are.
Motivation isn’t enough, there has to be a crime.
@taco I dunno. Monthly hate marches/rallies against gay youth are pretty intimidating to them, teachers and all 2sLGBTQ people. But I guess we can just keep a low profile while ideological fundamentalists target our community to harm 2SLGBTQ youth and decide if schools can even acknowledge our existence.
These marches are an outward expression of hate. I guess I'm to endure a lifetime of that, an continue to live in fear. I was hoping the next generation doesn't have to.
@QueerInTheCountry Doesn't matter if it does intimidate. It matters if it's intended to intimidate.
Posting a picture of a big dick on the internet would intimidate some people. Doesn't make it terrorism.
@LouisIngenthron You're example is funny.
However...
It's very reasonable to conclude intimidation is intended. What would happen to kids whose homophobic and, abusive parents were told they were gay? You don't think this would intimidate a 15 yr old?
Please read more on this from the counter protestors, and LGBTQ people who experienced conversion therapy and familial abuse. This is what they advocate for as they make their kids hold signs that says their parents own them.
@QueerInTheCountry If they're abusing their children, that's a crime they should be prosecuted for. But I don't think making a kid hold a sign counts as "child abuse".
More importantly, it doesn't matter if *you* conclude that intimidation is intended. You have to prove that *they* did what they did with the intent to intimidate someone into doing something.
Therefore, advocating for a change in the law is not, in any way, terrorism. In fact, it's democracy in action. And that's a good thing.
If the law did allow these people to be arrested because of their advocacy, history tells us that law wouldn't be used on them. It would be used on BLM marchers.
So, the answer to such repugnant speech is not to get the government to shut it down. The answer is to provide counter-speech and be more persuasive than the fascists.
@LouisIngenthron @LouisIngenthron We are going to have to agree to disagree.
I don't think advocating for a change of law that strips people of their human rights and right to be spoken of or even exist should be legal.
This would not apply to BLM. They advocate for the rights and dignity of black people. Disturbing you could draw a parallel.
It also doesn't matter what you think. You live in another country, that promotes Christofacism and elected a rapist.
@QueerInTheCountry FWIW, I marched in the BLM protests of 2020, so I very much understand the difference.
And, it doesn't really matter if you can't see the similarities between two movements that seek to advocate for the change of laws through public nonviolent demonstrations. Because your opponents will see that similarity and use it against you. For example:
My country has been through this before. We tried to enact hate speech laws. Know who got arrested? A man, in 1940, on the public sidewalk, who called organized religion a "racket".
That's the problem with passing subjective speech laws to stop fascists... Fascists *fucking love* to use those laws against marginalized communities.
