Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Peaceable Assembly

I've been trying to come up with a coherent post about the Toledo riots, but I've got nothing coherent. I do have questions: 1. Who dresses Neo-Nazis? Seriously. Do these guys look in the mirror and think "Damn, I look like a man who commands respect and attention?" Because, if so, they need different mirrors. I'm not sure how long this link will stay good for, but I don't even think that dude with the wallet chain has his pants buttoned. And the guys in the brown shirts might want to consider lengthening their ties--just a hair--because right now, they seem to draw attention directly to the fact that their pants are hiked up unflatteringly high. When I was a young girl, the neo-Nazis were all about khaki pants and white shirts and red suspenders and black boots. They were idiots, but they were color coordinated. Toledo has some old men playing World War II costume party and some gas station attendants, from the looks of it. 2. It's funny to me how the definition of "white" shrinks and expands. One hundred years ago, Irish people were barely "white" and Poles & other Slavic people definitely weren't and now you've got the neo-Nazis running to the defense of Tom Szych. 3. Why the hell did the Toledo police have to waste valuable personnel-time on this nonsense? Maybe the Legal Eagle can clear this up for me, but in what way does a neo-Nazi march through a diverse neighborhood constitute "peaceable assembly?" Isn't the very point of playing skinhead dress-up and showing your numbers to be a kind of implicit threat? You emulate the genocidal regime of a madman because you want people to look at you and refer back to the real Nazis, right? What is it about the real Nazis that you want them to think of? The containment and destruction of people different than you. If it were really just a case of "white people sticking up for each other," why the Nazi paraphernalia? Once you bring the swastika into it, it seems to me that you want people to be afraid of you because you want to be violent against them. How again is that "peaceable?" And if it's not "peaceable assembly," why do they get police protection? And why shouldn't the people in the neighborhood be able to protect themselves from this threat? If I can shoot a burglar coming through my window, why can't I throw some rocks at some idiots marching through my neighborhood? I'm not the government. If they have a problem with me, I'm not obligated to hear them out.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Sarcastro said...

The "Neo-Nazis are poorly dressed losers" argument is a given.

The big questions are this: How can someone feel threatened by this lame example of 'white power'?

And, how does looting a store and a bar for free merchandise and booze constitute an effective counter-protest?

Lame-os masquerading as Martin Bormann are not nearly as dire a threat to freedom, peace and safety than thugs who smash, grab and steal in the name of 'civil rights'.

10/18/2005 12:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The police are there to serve and protect all citizens, not just those whose politics they support. Twelve dorks in ill-fitting close with poorly worded signange and bad haircuts are just as deserving as police protection. Why do would you suggest that these idiots deserve any less police protection than any other group of idiots? Do we really want, as a matter of social policy, to empower the local police to determine which idiots they will serve and protect and which they will leave to the masses?

Also do we really want to encourage a violent mob response to the marchings of a half dozen losers? If anything, the mob's response can easily be spun as support for their platform - you get young black men together and violence ensues.

LE

10/18/2005 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger Kleinheider said...

Once you bring the swastika into it, it seems to me that you want people to be afraid of you because you want to be violent against them.

I understand what you're saying but just because someone does something meant to instill fear and intimidation doen't give you a right to attack them nor do they foreit their right to protection by doing so.

If I can shoot a burglar coming through my window, why can't I throw some rocks at some idiots marching through my neighborhood? I'm not the government.

Well, 'cause that's assault sister. If they have done nothing overt, you have no right to assault them.

If they have a problem with me, I'm not obligated to hear them out.

You're sure not. But you can't throw stuff. Just leave.

It is society's interest to leave these knuckleheads run around playing costume Nazi. It makes them feel a little better about their sad, little lives and they aren't hurting anyone.

However, you start infringing on their expression, make them feel more oppressed and sad than they already do -- then they will go underground. And then they will turn violent.

10/18/2005 02:04:00 PM  
Blogger Aunt B said...

My god, my three favorite conservative men all in one place, all agreeing. It's enough to make a girl a little flush...

S., I don't think looting a store and a bar are effective counter-protestations. I think young hooligans saw an opportunity and took it.

LE., fair enough. But isn't the point of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez that the police don't have a duty to protect citizens?

A.C., I don't know why, but it tickles me when you call me 'sister.' I feel a little like I'm corrisponding with some 1940s detective. My only question for you is aren't they already violent? At least, they want to be perceived as being violent. Is it my duty to discern whether what's in their hearts corrisponds with how they portray themselves?

As a side note, I have a feeling that this conversation is totally going to derail my dream of learning how to shoot big guns, as there will be no conservative men willing to teach me after this.

I'm not going to actually shoot anyone. I swear.

10/18/2005 02:56:00 PM  
Blogger the Professor said...

Wasn't the bar some old white man hangout where lots of these "socialists" met to drink and plot? I do agree that was not an effective or legal counter-protest, but I think it was actually more than just looting. It was pillaging a sort of sacred site to take away a place where hatred breathes.

10/18/2005 04:06:00 PM  
Blogger Peggasus said...

I remember when the Neo-Nazis marched in Skokie a number of years ago. Skokie is probably the most pedominately Jewish suburb in all Chicagoland, with a large numer of concentration camp survivors. Understanably, people were very upset. Many court motions were made trying to stop the march. It made the national news for quite some time.

I remember wondering at the time why they just didn't let the assholes do it, and why their strategy wasn't just to have everybody stay home and let them do their march on a deserted street.

Onlookers and protesters just play right into their hands when they give them any attention whatsoever.

10/18/2005 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger Sam Chevre said...

If I can shoot a burglar coming through my window, why can't I throw some rocks at some idiots marching through my neighborhood?

Basically, because you own your house; you don't own the streets in your neighborhood. So long as the idiots stay on public property and don't physically threaten you, you have to leave them alone. (Otherwise, you get what were, here in Richmond, referred to as the "border wars"--people beating up "trespassers" in their neighborhood from other neighborhoods.)

10/19/2005 08:31:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home