Forum menu
It's all about multiculturalism innit ...
You do not have to be Breivik to go berserk and in some societies you have mass macheting of one race, tribes, community against the new comers, race tribes etc ... so Aryan or not it is going to happen if changes happen to soon too quickly. Look at some of the islanders in Indonesia for example, you get macheted simply for being outsiders with different belief if you are not careful.
So you think that not giving Breivik a platform to promote his views would represent an infestation of vile hate ?
Allowing "justice" to be performed behind closed doors, where unknown officials decide the fate of the accused would definitely be a victory for hatred.
GrahamS - Member
Now if my plan had been followed at the time, he'd have been long forgotten by now..
Yep I can see it now:"Apparently a bomb went off in Norway killing 8 then 69 people were shot, mainly children."
"Did they get anyone for it?"
"Yep, executed them on the spot under Derek's Law"
"Righto. Do you know won the snooker?"
OK, so you are on the island you have a gun, he's just shot one of yours, answer this dudes question below.
FeeFoo - Member
Thought experiment:Forget about the Law and our justice system for a moment.
Imagine that the mother or father of one of the children was on the island and they managed to corner him after he'd shot all the children, including theirs.
They have a gun.
Should they shoot him?
Would you?This isn't a comment about what is right and wrong, just answer honestly.
No, you don't shoot him.
Because then you make him a martyr... You make him a hero for the cause, you give him status that he cannot gain when he sits in a dock and spouts his simplistic evil nonsense and does his stupid little hand gestures.
By subjecting him to the due process of the law, in public, in the full view of the world, you expose his juvenile, parochial racism for what it is.
Most of all, most of all, you show the world that violence, even of the most abhorrent, low, disgraceful kind, is [b]not[/b] the answer.
You demonstrate that you are [u]better[/u] than that.
OK, so your in a dark room, a single flickering light bulb creates more shadows than it dispels, tied to a solitary chair in the centre of the room, head covered with a black cloth hiding his face, is a sobbing terrified man, he could be anyone, another man, in a military uniform, hands you a gun tells you he is a killer, asks you to shoot him in the head.
Would you?
...and, ernie and hora, you show that a society where we are not afraid to show the world how wrong his way of thinking is, is the kind of society that we would like to live in.
Your mileage, as they say, may vary. Mine does not.
OK, so you are on the island you have a gun, he's just shot one of yours, answer this dudes question below.
If I caught someone who had "only" mugged my little girl then I might very well kill them, or at least do them serious injury in the heat of the moment.
Does that mean I think the punishment for mugging should be death (without trial)? No.
Burma, for example?
Or Tibet, under Chinese control?
North Korea?Maybe Chechnya?
Can you think of any more societies who would ****ing love to be able to have trials in complete secret?
Have a wee think about what you are asking for, have a wee think about the impact of showing the world that it's ok to try people in secret because they have views which you don't agree with.
What the hell are you on about crikey ? Why are you trying to take a sensible suggestion not to allow a publicity seeking mass murderer a platform, and suggesting this somehow equates with North Korea ? Do you have to take it into the realms of the ridiculous ? Have you really never heard of reporting restrictions ? As an example, much of what the Yorkshire Ripper did was not reported at the time - due to concerns of copycat murders, but I think we can safely say that the Yorkshire Ripper received a fair trial.
Ernie - so where do you draw the line then? you say this is an exceptional case so should be treated differently but how and where do you draw the line?
Justice should be blind - every defendant gets the same rights to a trail on the same basis IMO.
so you sy his trial should be held in secret - how do you decide which ones should be held in secret?
Allowing "justice" to be performed behind closed doors, where unknown officials decide the fate of the accused would definitely be a victory for hatred.
I fail to see how having reporting restrictions would represent "a victory for hatred".
However giving him a public platform to justify his hate motivated mass murder would appear to be something of a victory for him.
Reporting restrictions? thats not derricks law, your squirming and changing your tune.
Ernie - so where do you draw the line then? you say this is an exceptional case so should be treated differently but how and where do you draw the line?
I have already answered that question - didn't you notice ? I said commonsense decides. Do you understand that concept ..... "commonsense" ?
I have already quoted his lawyer, let me do it again :
[i]“He is obviously pleased that he will be able to explain himself and that there is an interest in the case, there is no doubt about that,” Breivik’s defense lawyer Geir Lippestad said after the first day in court.[/i]
How daft do you have to be to understand how dangerous that is ?
Reporting restrictions? thats not derricks law, your squirming and changing your tune.
Who the **** is derrick ?
I haven't changed my tune at all - what are you talking about ?
[i]Do you have to take it into the realms of the ridiculous ?[/i]
Spoken like a true totaliarian dictator, well done ernie, well done.
You seem to be suggesting that it's okay for us to behave like that because we are the good guys, I wonder how many people have used that very same excuse.
Shame. You are usually quite astute with regard to political issues, in fact more astute than I could ever be. On this issue, however, you are wrong. The fact that hora agrees with you should at least cause you to pause and reflect.
A tongue in cheek quote from The Clash; 'You have the right to Free Speech, as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it'.
I'm not trying to score points in a crappy STW debate; you are actually wrong, and I think if you consider the impact of a closed trial as opposed to the public trial which is occuring, you will see where the problem lies.
Ernie commonsense decides is no answer - you should know that.
Once you allow officials to decide who should be tried in secret its a very slippery slope - "common-sense decides" is very subjective way of looking at things. who decides what is commonsense? You? Hora? Derekrides?
Who the **** is derrick ?
ah I see, you haven't read the tread, just waded in with an opinion without realising the points of the discussion actually taking place, now I understand your confusion.
Spoken like a true totaliarian dictator, well done ernie, well done.
Well done. I argue that a hate-filled mass-murderer shouldn't be given a public platform to justify his actions, and that makes me like 'a true totalitarian dictator'. Get a grip ffs.
The fact that hora agrees with you should at least cause you to pause and reflect.
Er, no. I don't operate like that. The position I take is quite irrelevant to who's on my side - it's not a team sport.
OK, so your in a dark room, a single flickering light bulb creates more shadows than it dispels, tied to a solitary chair in the centre of the room, head covered with a black cloth hiding his face, is a sobbing terrified man, he could be anyone, another man, in a military uniform, hands you a gun tells you he is a killer, asks you to shoot him in the head.Would you?
I too enjoyed the Bourne Ultimatum
ah I see, you haven't read the tread, just waded in with an opinion without realising the points of the discussion actually taking place, now I understand your confusion.
There's no confusion at all. I posted on the thread to give my opinion - not someones else's opinion.
It is you who appears to be confused in accusing of 'changing tune' because I'm not saying the same thing as someone else said. Pay attention and try not to confuse me with someone else.
[i]it's not a team sport.[/i]
You'd obviously never get picked were it so.
You don't seem like one for knee jerk reactions, but you appear to be doing exactly that; the nasty racist man is saying things I don't agree with, so he shouldn't be allowed to say them in public.
Perhaps a wee look at the history and essence of free speech would jog your memory; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Here is another quote for you to consider;
[b]"Sunlight is the best disinfectant"[/b]
You don't seem like one for knee jerk reactions, but you appear to be doing exactly that; the nasty racist man is saying things I don't agree with, so he shouldn't be allowed to say them in public.
😀 It's got nothing to do with me not agreeing with him !
And everything to do with the dangers of giving a hate-filled mass murderer the opportunity to justify his actions.
[i]And everything to do with the dangers of giving a hate-filled mass murderer the opportunity to justify his actions.[/i]
..Really?
I mean really, really?
So we should pretend that the nasty man didn't do it because he was a right wing nutcase? That maybe he was a short sighted reindeer hunter who took his wife's glasses by mistake?
He's out there, he already exists, his poisonous idiocy has already spread across the internet, he is already a hero of the right wing simpletons. How is pretending anything else going to help?
Go to bed.
Here you are crikey, posted on Stormfront forum today :
Jew,Arabs,Africans and Hispanics agree-one mans terrorist is another man patriot.Unfortunately it does sometimes take extreme terrorist like Breivik to bring attention to the REAL problem of mass unwanted and generally FORCED immigration,integration and intimidation by tens of thousands ,if not soon millions, of foreigners who were never wanted in his country.Acting is such a violent way,thought it may be repulsive to some,is in fact just the tip of the iceberg in Norway.Obviously Breivik is aware of the intolerable and destructive effects being currently done in Europe and all over America,with FORCED integration and immigration today; and does not desire to see his own country fall to the same monumental disaster.How much disgusting stupidity and ignorance is one man expected to live with under the disguise of equality,diversity,inclusion,tolerance and acceptance.
And :
Personally, I'm glad he's not claiming insanity or apologizing for his actions. There is a war against White nations and he is making it quite clear that he acted in self defense for his culture and his people.I think his message is going to make a lot of people stop and think about what is happening to White nations across the world.
OK not everyone on that forum supports or feels sympathy for Breivik, the fact that he killed mainly white people doesn't go down very well with quite a few of them, but as I said earlier, if he inspires just a handful of people then the consequences could be disastrous.
So we should pretend that the nasty man didn't do it because he was a right wing nutcase? That maybe he was a short sighted reindeer hunter who took his wife's glasses by mistake?
I can't comment on his mental health, but the Norwegian authorities have, presumably according to you they are just pretending that he's not a "nutjob" ?
Go to bed.
And right there mate you fail
..I'll explain it again, because you are being peculiarly obtuse....
If a democratic nation state in Europe decides to hold the trial of a politically motivated murderer behind closed doors, then every other nation state across the world, including all the nasty ones that we pinko lefty westerners find to be not the kind of people we would invite round to dinner, will see that it is perfectly OK to do the same.
Let him spout his stupid rhetoric, let him chant his message of hate to the believers and the non-believers alike, then let him be tried and sentenced, in public, in the full glare of the world, and we will demonstrate that his views hold no value, that his nasty, evil, juvenile racism is not wanted, not required, and will not triumph.
He is a common criminal, treat him like one.
Or....
Do it behind closed doors, cos that will crush any latent facism straight away, won't it?
He is a common criminal
Because killing 77 innocent people in one day is a common crime, yeah right.
Besides, I thought you said he was a nutjob - make your mind up ffs.
Night.
Ernie - so what triggers this secret trial? How do you decide who gets a secret trial? Saying commonsense is a cop out and yo must realise this. Should Fred Wests trial have been held in secret? Brady? Teh unabomber? the World trade centre bombers?
You are effectively deciding their guilt beforehand are you not?
As for the oxygen of publicity - a secret trial would create as muchinterest in the nutjobs like you quote above - then it would be " "conspiracy to silence patriot" to them.
Should Fred Wests trial have been held in secret?
I asked you earlier if you understood the concept of commonsense, I now have my answer - you don't.
Commonsense dictates that it would not have been necessary or in the public good to have had reporting restrictions on Fred West's trial (he never received a trial). He did not commit the murders to receive publicity or inspire others.
Most of all, most of all, you show the world that violence, even of the most abhorrent, low, disgraceful kind, is not the answer.You demonstrate that you are better than that.
Are you sure you put [b]yourself[/b] in that position when you thought about the situation?
If you did and were able to think of that moral decision having just had your child and others killed in front of you, you are a different make up to me and I imagine many others.
Sounds more like you want to state the "proper" way to behave but not the actual way you would behave. Or am I wrong?
[i]Or am I wrong?[/i]
Yes. Yes you are.
Ernie - I understand that "commonsense" is subjective and variable. I am trying to get you to give some objective standards to this " commonsense" decision to hold trials in secret that you want
What yo consider to be commonsense others do not - thats clear from many debates on here.
Even that a good few folk disagree with you on this shows that there is no such thing as a commonsense line on this that can be shared.
So -= can you actually put some criteria together to say when you would draw this line? Or do you think a subjective decision should be made before any evidence is heard that a trial should be held in secret. Who decides?
Fair enough.
I salute your super-human stoicism.
No, really I do. Honest. Oh yes. Indeed.
does Mutley laugh
Er not wanting to butt into 'big hitter' thread domination, but just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law' it means no trial, just instant response, you kill lots of people, you get instantly terminated, no trial (they are an industry in their own right, don't get me started on human rights lawyers).
It should be a universal response, until such times as a suitable cure is found.
Put them down as you would a dog.
In reality in lots of similar circumstances the perpetrator self eliminates, but in this instance his whole strategy was leading to this trial, he surrendered, asked to be taken into custody by the 'Delta Force' but whilst he waited he calmly popped a cap into a couple more... Knowing all along there would be no serious repercussion for him pain wise, which illustrates the point I'm trying to make to the naive lefties..
open court, found guilty , death penalty . good bye , end of
just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law'Put them down as you would a dog.
You should get the Sun to back your 'Dereks Law' campaign.
Write them a letter and see what they say. They like a good rabble-rousing campaign.
Specially if it has a hint of the lynch mob about it.
derekrides - MemberEr not wanting to butt into 'big hitter' thread domination, but just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law' it means no trial, just instant response, you kill lots of people, you get instantly terminated,
scraprider - Memberopen court, found guilty , death penalty . good bye , end of
Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.
ernie_lynch - Member
just to clarify what is being referred to as 'Dereks Law'
Put them down as you would a dog.You should get the Sun to back your 'Dereks Law' campaign.
Write them a letter and see what they say. They like a good rabble-rousing campaign.
Specially if it has a hint of the lynch mob about it.
Well you'll have to excuse the seemingly absurdness of that line, but it was only a few days ago, folk were howling for the death of some defenceless dumb animal because it had damaged some Coves fine anorak, yet here we are with a genuine reason to remove something truly dangerous, not dumb, but scheming, and we have veritable hands bleeding they are wrung that dry..only in STW could this be, there should be a verb about it.
And the very thing he wants is being achieved right here, he's being talked about, his views are being discussed, he's not just winning, he has won probably more than his wildest fantasies ever suggested to his addled persona..
So GrahamS resume of what happened, "78 killed? Did they get someone? Yes instant justice under Dereks Law, he's dead now, good pass the beer nuts..
Is what it should rate, then he loses.
TandemJeremy - MemberGuilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.
No, don't you start, go back read the thread, Dereks Law states where there is no doubt, caught red handed, smoking gun in hand, everything else remains as is, hypocrisy, plea bargains, human rights and all..
Just instances like this where there is mass slaughter the perp is caught in situ..
Guilford 4, birmingham 6, all dead by your standards all innocent in fact.
I'm sure 'Dereks Law' would not include the right of appeal, public inquires, or any other sort of nonsense like that.
So they would in fact all remind guilty. Which is much more tidy.
I love this place... Seriously. It's like a trip to Bedlam for those Victorians must have been, but without the smell... 🙂 🙂
Well you'll have to excuse the seemingly absurdness of that line, but it was only a few days ago, folk were howling for the death of some defenceless dumb animal because ......
I know someone who's dog was legally destroyed because it bit someone, but it did have to go to court for that to happen.
So unlike your claim that Dereks Law would [i]"put them down as you would a dog",[/i] it wouldn't - dogs would have more rights.
Or are you going to extend Dereks Law to also include dogs ?
derekrides
No, don't you start, go back read the thread, Dereks Law states where there is no doubt,
So how do you prevent the like of the birmingham 6 then? Are you prepared for oinnocents to be excecuted after miscarriges of justice?
You appear to be proposing a new level of guilt. at the moment we have guilty beyond reasonable doubt as the standard of proof. Lots of folks get off because it can't be proved. you want a higher standard? guilty beyond any doubt at all even in the mind of the most loony person in teh UK
[i]Are you prepared for [b]oinnocents[/b] to be excecuted after miscarriges of justice?[/i]
Is that guilty of being Oirish then TJ? 🙂
Dereks Law states where there is no doubt
So no different from the Legal System that found those 10 innocent people Guilty then ?
...[b]Beyond all reasonable doubt:[/b]...The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.