Dankula Weighs in on Being Convicted for His Dog’s Politics

[Fife]

[BjornP]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ree-speech

It is one thing to offend people, quite another to foment hatred. Should that not be banned? The trouble is, you can’t challenge bigotry by banning it. You simply let the sentiments fester out of sight. In censoring ugly ideas, we can pretend they don’t exist, but we abrogate our responsibility for challenging them openly and robustly.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's amazing to see them construct another fake reality to hide from that the fact that, in order to defend the prosecution of this guy, they have to actually defend Nazism. Hitler would have applauded this prosecution. In fact, I am pretty sure they did in fact prosecute a guy for teaching his dog to do something similar.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's probably videos like that they really are punishing him for.

[Smitty-48]

Conversely do you think that allowing Communist parties to stand for election and Socialists to publicly and legally voice their opinions, you're contributing to the creation of a Communist state? That allowing Trotskyists a public voice, you're effectualizing USSR, Britain Edition?

It would be logically consistent for a monarchy to decline to allow for Communists in the ranks, Bolshevism being an anathema to Loyal Opposition, inherent to its core ideology. You actually have no right to run on a platform of overthrowing the very which Crown defends the right.

If Trotksyists voice a public opinion of sedition against the Crown, you could apprehend that consistent with Westphalia/Westminster, if they attempt to affect it from the streets, you could shoot them consistent with Westphalia/Westminster.

The realpolitik is that Westphalia/Westminster tolerates Communists only so long as they remain a tiny fringe on the margin, in the event of them actually challenging the supremacy of the Crown, then you would see the fangs come out methinks, and rightly so, as the Crown of course reserves the prerogative to defend itself and all loyal subjects therein.

[Speaker to Animals]

These days they apparently well let almost anybody in the American military. That communist shit who wore a Che t-shirt at his West Point graduation I think is still in uniform (and breathing). Weird times.

[Smitty-48]

In terms of disrupting a funeral, that is a criminal offence, in the United States as well.

States have "disturbing the peace/disrupting public order" statutes, and in terms of military funerals, disrupting them is prohibited federally under 18 U.S. Code § 1388

[Smitty-48]

We need another Brit to make a video, training their dog for...

"Fido, should I throw the gays off the roof? Gays off the roof Fido? Allah Ackbar Fido? Rape white women Fido?" - maybe train him to get excited at "gays off the roof", howl at Allah Ackbar, and hump the sofa at "rape the women"...

Think it'll be found "grossly offensive" in a UK court?

This is more the issue right here, one ideological group is being given more leeway than another in terms of disrupting the Queen's Peace; not logically consistent with Westphalia/Westminster.

To wit, hang them from the yardarm as needs be, by all means, but then you must hang them all consistently.

[BjornP]

Conversely do you think that allowing Communist parties to stand for election and Socialists to publicly and legally voice their opinions, you're contributing to the creation of a Communist state? That allowing Trotskyists a public voice, you're effectualizing USSR, Britain Edition?

It would be logically consistent for a monarchy to decline to allow for Communists in the ranks, Bolshevism being an anathema to Loyal Opposition, inherent to its core ideology. You actually have no right to run on a platform of overthrowing the very which Crown defends the right.

If Trotksyists voice a public opinion of sedition against the Crown, you could apprehend that consistent with Westphalia/Westminster, if they attempt to affect it from the streets, you could shoot them consistent with Westphalia/Westminster.

The realpolitik is that Westphalia/Westminster tolerates Communists only so long as they remain a tiny fringe on the margin, in the event of them actually challenging the supremacy of the Crown, then you would see the fangs come out methinks, and rightly so, as the Crown of course reserves the prerogative to defend itself and all loyal subjects therein.

That may indeed be logically consistent as per how the British constitution works, though I am skeptical. Or rather, hoping against hope that the Brits aren't that anti-freedom. Are the British really still "subjects"? And they have a Social Liberal party in Britain, don't they? Aren't they anti-monarchy? And I suspect some Labour MP's aren't monarchists, either. And didn't the Australians vote about not having Queen Elizabeth as their head of state a decade or so ago? All in all, doesn't seem to be any "logical inconsistancy" in allowing people who want to change society to try and change society...as long as you have a constitution that prevents MP's and governments from changing it too much, too soon.

[Smitty-48]

You don't have to be a monarchist, Her Majesty defends that right, but social liberalism does not have unhorsing and unheading the Crown as its core ideology, as opposed to Bolshevism which is sedition by its very nature.

The House of Windsor ne Saxe-Coburg & Gotha made this pact a century ago, you are within your rights to be a "Democratic Socialist" in Loyal Opposition, but revolutionary Bolshevism crosses the line, and the realpolitik is simply the Bolsheviks haven't crossed that line since.

If they did, I would submit, they would find out that they were a much smaller cohort than surely would have surmised in doing so, lolberg "freedom" to be a Commie, is no freedom at all, to Westphalia/Westminster.

The truth of the British lefties is that their bark is far worse than their bite, we are aware that they are Facebook faux bolshies, not the real deal, they're not going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the only thing standing between them and the lampposts is in fact HM herself.