Why Be Amazed That A Racist Administration Would Snub An Accord To Curb Hate Speech?

The recent news that the Trump Racist and Criminal White House - a nest of vipers if ever there was one - snubbed the Christchurch Call, should not shock anyone. The "Christchurch Call", for those unaware, was an accord signed by nine nations Wednesday in response to the murderous attack on mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand that left 51 dead.

One would have thought all civilized nations with interests in curbing extremist vitriol online would have signed on the 3-page agreement sponsored by New Zealand Premier Jacinda Ardern and French President Emmanuel Macron.

But not Trump and the U.S.   The Trump White House stated that "while it agrees with the overarching message" of the initiative, it "isn't currently in a position to join the endorsement".  These are weasel words for asserting it fully intends to protect hate speech, such as emanates from the dregs of the net, like 8chan, 4chan and similar cesspools.

Just put the speech under the banner of "free speech" and anything goes, and besides Trump can then get to applaud his top pals amongst the Nazis and KKK as worthy of respect.

I mean, when you have former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke applauding your spiel it's a no brainer that you're on the freaking WRONG side of history. Worse, you're cheering the Nazis and KKK, White Nationalists on by referring to them as "some very fine people".  This is what Herr Drumpf did back in August of 2017 after the Charlottesville violence with racists beating the holy hell our of protesters, e.g.


As well as thousands of cheering jeering Nazis and Confederates parading proudly, gratified to emerge from the hate woodwork after Trump had ascended to Fuhrer.


Trump's extremist minions march in Charlottesville, VA in Aug. 2017.

So why be surprised the Trump criminal vermin would refuse to sign on to an accord that would seek to curb hate speech, and the sort of verbal vomit that egged on the perpetrators of the slaughter in New Zealand as well as last year in the U.S. e.g. in the Tree of Life massacre.

According to the  corporate media the U.S. stance simply "points to how ideological differences on the role of government and the primacy of free expression complicate efforts to rein in extreme content on social media".    But I have a different take more in line with the signatories: that the U.S. leadership no longer possesses the moral compass to distinguish right from wrong, and hence is unable to differentiate hate speech from free speech. In effect, in the Trumpite Nazis' minds the two are now conflated, and woe betide anyone who tries to bring heat down on the Trump base for their bigoted memes.

Am I being too hard on Trump and his retinue of fascists, bigots and lawbreakers? Judge for yourselves after Trump delivered his "very fine people"  spiel and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke responded:   "Thank you President Trump for your honesty & courage to tell the truth about #Charlottesville & condemn the leftist terrorists in BLM/Antifa.”

Righto - the "leftist terrorists" who protected elderly African-Americans singing "this little light of mine" from being clubbed to death and maced by white supremacist thugs who also pointed guns at their heads.

Back to the Christchurch accord:  it  takes aim at  online terror, extremist rhetoric, and anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim content. In other words, anything that can trigger terror attacks such as the one in N.Z. where we know the Aussie mass killer had live streamed his murderous acts to appeal to the denizens of 8chan for their approval.

This is not rocket science and as my psychologist niece Shayl put it the M.O. is clear: "Most of the domestic terrorists promote themselves and their propaganda online and use it to basically radicalize others, create copycats and mainstream their memes and ideologies."

At the meeting Wednesday all the main G7 nations agreed the accord needed to be implemented to shut down extremist voices.  The only country that diverged - in the name of "protecting free speech" (actually protecting hate speech)- was the United States.   As one on site media observer noted last night on 'All In':

"Everyone's jaw dropped. It was then clear the president of the United States - who refused to disavow his Nazi and white nationalist supporters- now had made it official to the rest of the world. That is, he is unwilling to fight hate and terror online."

What was the big deal, the big problem in signing? Who knows? The accord simply incorporated signed commitments to act from signatory governments and tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google - owner of Youtube.  The promises include the creation of a crisis plan for sharing information in the event of a terrorist attack.  Also important are the commitments of companies (like Google and Facebook) to prevent the live streaming of any domestic terror butchery or any other displays that might spread violent extremism. 

Sadly, we know other memes the Trumpies may have listened to are similar to what appeared in a TIME essay ('Hate Can't Be Blocked', May 19, p.25).  That essay, by Alex Krasodomski-Jones,  claimed it was "impossible" to totally snuff out hate speech given it would always emerge someplace - maybe in darkness (dark web) - where its propagators could still feed off it.  Maybe.  But at least it would be sequestered from the more open public square where it might infect susceptible minds.  

What was most revolting to me is when the author claimed:

"There's a lot to learn from sites like 8chan, alongside the violent extremism"

He argues this is given "they are among the most innovative and forceful drivers of cultural change and politics online for the last decade."

Yeah, but seriously, one need not go to a landfill to excavate the waste from porto-potties to learn how bad waste and its contamination can be. 

He also inbsists we need to learn (governments, that is), how and why extremist communities thrive in online spaces and "how they can brought back into the fold."  This again, isn't like general relativity.   More education, including in basic ethics, is needed at all levels for a largely amoral populace that thrives on seeing anyone different as "the other" and open to persecution.  In the meantime, we need to control the spread of the incipient mind viruses like we would Measles or Avian flu.  We also know the setting of moral-ethical standards begins at the top, so we need an election (next year) to change this vile current occupation by nationalists and know nothings.  Ethicist and author Marilynne Robinson is correct that we need to re-examine ourselves.  That includes the basis for voting choices. We can't simply base them on reaping better 401k balances.

We also know other nations - like Germany - take such viral mind infection seriously.  Thus, as my German friend Reinhardt noted when I last saw him in Garmisch 6 years ago, one can get years in prison for displaying swastikas or engaging in holocaust denial. 

I am not saying the U.S. need go that far, but it could at least be a signatory to an accord that embodies acceptance of basic human decency, and making an effort to control the dissemination of pathological propaganda and mind viruses online.  Especially given social media platforms are among the most powerful agents for radicalization today.  

 It's either that, or we are faced with ever more domestic terror and mass slaughters.  Meanwhile, the Canadians signing onto the accord were very clear on where they wish to go and are unafraid to over regulate if need be. Better to err on the side of over regulation than have mass slaughter such as in New Zealand and the Tree of Life Synagogue in the U.S.

See also:

Peace & Justice

What Happens When Conspiracy Theories Go Mainstream?

by Ilana Novick | May 17, 2019 - 6:47am | permalink

Excerpt:

"Sometimes, however, theories escape the confines of online message boards and social media and turn dangerous, even fatal. No one laughed when a man named Edgar Welch drove from North Carolina to Washington, D.C., and fired shots at innocent people in a pizzeria because he was a “believer in Pizzagate,” a theory spread by people like right-wing radio show host Alex Jones that Hillary Clinton and her close advisers ran a pedophilia ring out of the pizzeria’s basement. There also was no laughter when James Alex Fields drove his car into a crowd at a 2017 white supremacist gathering in Charlottesville, Va., killing anti-racist protester Heather Heyer.

As journalist Anna Merlan explains in her new book, “Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power,” “While conspiracy theories are as old as the country itself, there is something new at work: people who peddle lies and half-truths have come to prominence, fame, and power as never before,” thanks to the Trump administration’s outward embrace of some of their biggest boosters."

New Zealand Acts To Implement Assault Rifle Ban - Why Not The U.S.?

The late SC Justice Antonin Scalia - your total conservative - asserted in the Heller case that no citizen has the right to own an assault-style weapon.  New Zealand PM Jacinda Ahern announcing the assault weapons ban proposal.

"Sandy Hook happened 6 years ago and we can’t even get the Senate to hold a vote on universal background checks w/ #HR8.

Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market.This is what leadership looks like" - Alexandra Ocasio -Cortez this morning

The real question, now that New Zealand has acted to have an assault rifle ban within 6 days of the Christchurch massacre   (which saw 50 Muslims slain by a white nationalist nut) is: What is taking the U.S. so long to implement a similar ban?    

For those behind the news curve- understandable in the Trump era with its endless histrionics, BS and daily flouting of laws and norms -  assault rifles and military-style semi-automatics are on track to be banned in New Zealand.  This is after Jacinda Ardern, the prime minister, announced sweeping and immediate changes to gun laws following the Christchurch mosque shootings.  Ardern yesterday said point blank:

“I absolutely believe there will be a common view amongst New Zealanders, those who use guns for legitimate purposes, and those who have never touched one, that the time for the mass and easy availability of these weapons must end. And today they will,”   

Adding: "In short, every semi-automatic weapon used in the terrorist attack on Friday will be banned in this country,”

And wonder of wonders, even the gun sellers there seem to get it. In a text this a.m. - from the CEO of New Zealand Hunting & Fishing Co. (one of the island nation's largest gun retailers) we saw:

 "Any government measure to permanently ban such weapons merits support. Weapons of war have no place in our business or our country."

How far do the new regs go?  Parts that are used to convert guns into military-style semi-automatics (MSSAs) have also being banned, along with high-capacity magazines and parts that cause a firearm to generate semi-automatic, automatic or close-to-automatic gunfire.  

P.M.  Ardern also directed officials to develop a gun buyback scheme for those who already own such weapons. She said “fair and reasonable compensation” would be paid.  This is analogous to an Australia scheme implemented after the infamous Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

On April 28, 1996, a 28-year-old Australian,  Martin Bryant,  ate lunch at Broad Arrow Cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, a historic penal colony and popular tourist resort. After his meal, Bryant returned his tray, removed a semiautomatic rifle from his bag, and opened fire. By the time Bryant was caught a day later, 35 people were dead and 23 wounded in what became the worst mass shooting in Australian history.

Unlike the U.S., the Aussies got serious about controlling their military-style weapons. Among other things, the Australian government banned automatic and semiautomatic firearms, adopted new licensing requirements, established a national firearms registry, and instituted a 28-day waiting period for gun purchases. It also bought and destroyed more than 600,000 civilian-owned firearms, in a scheme that cost half a billion dollars and was funded by raising taxes. The entire overhaul took just months to implement.

The  New Zealand buyback scheme is estimated to cost between $100m and $200m. P.M. Ardern said the government was still working out how to fund it.

New Zealand, a country of less than 5 million people, has an estimated 1.2-1.5m firearms. The number of MSSA weapons is not known, but there are 13,500 firearms which require the owner to have an E-Cat licence, which the government is using to estimate the number of MSSAs.

We also know, as reported also this a.m. (CBS) that New Zealand has no constitutional right to bear arms.  But technically, neither does the U.S.  A point I've belabored in multiple earlier posts. And given the U.S. has some 400 million guns in circulation, and has had 1,988 mass shootings since Sandy Hook in 2012, there is a need for the nation to get its collective head straight.  

What does that mean? Let's go through the salient points again.  I begin with the claim anyone has the "right" to own an AR-15 or any other military-style assault weapon.

In 2008, then Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, delivered a dual opinion still not absorbed by most gun owners. The court said the District’s ban on handguns in private homes went too far, but that regulation of gun ownership was compatible with the Second Amendment:

Scalia wrote at the time:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

To get the language straight, and in Scalia's terms, it is useful to replace "assault weapons,”  with  the phrase:  “the kinds of weapons that Justice Antonin Scalia has defined as ‘dangerous and unusual’ and subject to regulation or an outright ban under the Second Amendment.”  And, if these weapons are subject to regulation, then they do not make for a "constitutional right".

As Joe Scarborough put it the morning of Feb. 21, 2018, just after the Parkland massacre:

 "Some say this is embedded in the constitution. It is not!"

Adding:

"Go back and read Heller, 2008, what Scalia and the Supreme Court said. You're right, you can have handguns in your home, and shotguns to protect your family. But the court has allowed states  - like Maryland (2017)  to ban assault style weapons.  They let this and other laws stand   - without challenge - as constitutional "

Scarborough went on to further clarify, which I can't render any more transparent:

"If you want to make the argument that the Supreme Court should protect your rights to have military style weapons, that's legitimate.  But if you say it is your God-given constitutional right to have an AR-15 that is not what the second amendment says. And it's not what Justice Scalia says or the Supreme Court says."

Now let's get to the core of the matter, the wording of the Second Amendment itself:

"A self-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If one claims to be an "originalist" - which most of the Right does in terms of constitutional interpretation  -  it ought not take an astrophysics degree to comprehend the amendment.   At the time this was written, muskets were the primary weapon, and no major organized standing army existed such as we have today. Indeed, the Continental Army of Washington, though it prevailed over the British, had massive war debts to pay off. There was no way to keep thousands of men under arms for sustained periods, as well as clothing and feeding them - far less recycling them with newer equipment each year!

It therefore became necessary to authorize the basis for a non-centralized force or "Militia" in order to supplement any governmentally- organized army called up. This "Militia" originated in the countryside, from citizens living across the land in various villages, towns and states. In effect, the 2nd amendment drafters were asserting the necessity for a subsidiary people's army to assist the main one. Citizens then became in effect, necessary to the security of the nation. One could then describe the state militias as "adjunct armies".

Indeed, some interpreters of the amendment believed the original content was even more diluted than I portrayed. They see the "well regulated militia" provision as actually devised as protections from any marauding, "loose cannons". These interpreters insist the framers would never in a million years have envisaged people (individuals) possessing permanent private weapons in their own homes.  And the notion of individuals owning military-style weapons like the AR-15 would have been as foreign to them as Moon rockets.

In  a controversial 1939 case, FDR's Solicitor General framed the argument to the Court:

"The Second Amendment grants people a right that is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only exists where the arms are borne in a militia or some other military organization provided by law and intended for protection of the State."

The SC decision was unanimous.  This was barely 79 years ago, so what happened in the interim to debase the amendment to be unrecognizable today?

While the Court's decision prevailed for several more decades, it started to unravel by the 1970s as various Right wing extremist groups coalesced to challenge "gun control"  based on spurious private gun ownership  interpretations. By virtue of the infusion of millions of bucks  into state legislative campaigns they successively overturned laws in legislatures - much like the abortion opponents are now doing in many red states.

Chief Justice Warren Burger himself was adamant that  the claim of a right to keep special weapons on one's own was bogus. writing:

"This is one of the greatest pieces of fraud on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Alas, as the strength and political power of the NRA metastasized, it was just a matter of time before more and more state legislatures (like in Florida) were bought out and their NRA political slaves passed laws contravening Justice Burger's and the earlier 1939 ruling. This is why the only way things will change is to vote out the NRA political slaves, as David Hogg and the other Parkland school massacre survivors have maintained.

In the meanwhile, this nation can only dream of  having a leader like Jacinda Ardern, who had the courage to act as opposed to letting the bodies pile up from cowardice and offering mere "hope 
and prayers".

See also:

Conservatives and the Right

White Nationalism, Born in the USA, Is Now a Global Terror Threat

Aussie Reich Fascist Mass Killer Brenton Tarrant Shows Trump's Threats Of Fascist Violence Have Even Infected Down Under

All of the Right wing mass murderers have taken their cues - and xenophobic  hate memes  - from the two ultimate fascists, Trump and Hitler.


Even as we learned yesterday the Connecticut Supreme Court had overturned a previous ruling and the "re-do" enables Sandy Hook families to sue Remington Outdoor Co. for its shameless peddling of toxic male (i.e. "Be a man, get an AR)  adverts, another mass killing erupted in another part of the planet 10,000 miles away.  This took place in Christchurch New Zealand where a self-proclaimed Aussie "actual fascist" (Brenton Tarrant) executed 49 faithful at two Mosques.

The scum right winger actually live streamed his butchery on Facebook, according to news segments shown this a.m. (CBS Early Show, MSNBC) which now places the maggot in the company of the most detestable vermin on Earth, i.e. slime like Anders Breivik,  and the U.S. synagogue butcher, Robert Bowers who was charged with 44 federal counts in the Tree of Life massacre.

Recall that Bowers, a  46 y/o truck driver and Pittsburgh resident was a committed poster on "Gab"  then the  'go to' haven for Nazis, White Nationalists, Aryans and other extremists.  Oh, and plenty of Trump supporters too. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the local CBS affiliate KDJA reported that a “white male [with] a beardwalked in yelling ‘All Jews must die’.”

Most appalling is how Tarrant,  the Aussie butcher, defiled one of the finest nations on Earth  (and the site for many splendid scenes from 'The Lord of the Rings' series) and traced his feral motivation to the Trumpist anti-immigrant, White Nationalist virus spreading in this country.  As he texted (shown on CBS this morning), after the slime was asked openly if he was a supporter of Trump:

"As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose, sure!"

Painting himself also as a "savior" in  a “manifesto”  posted online before the attacks ('The Great Replacement') in which he fancied himself  ensuring "the existence of our people and a future for white children."  - Hence, he evokes the nonsense self-portrait of many of the other Reich kooks recently-   such as Christopher Hasson, who had laid away a store of arms , e.g.

To carry out a terrorist purge of retribution in his febrile brain. (Fortunately this cretin was busted in time).  Meanwhile, Tarrant also expressed delusions of grandeur in his lame manifesto, professing his act was intended to "create conflict between two ideologies in the United States on the ownership of firearms."

Well, you're a tad late there, Roscoe.  That battle of ideologies has been ongoing with max intensity since the ban on assault weapons was lifted over 20 years ago.

None of these recent violent mass slaughters just sprang spontaneously but have clearly been percolating as more and more words from Trump and his platoon of White Nationalist crazies have been spewed out.  They've stirred up hate with their vile rhetoric -   often praising neo-Nazis and other filth.  Now we know the virus has even reached to "down under".

In this latest hate outbreak we've learned forty-nine people have been shot dead and 48 injured in attacks targeting Muslims at two mosques during Friday prayers in Christchurch,  This makes it   the worst mass shooting in New Zealand’s history, with more slain in Kiwi land than all of last year.  Prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, described the atrocity as a terrorist attack - which is what it was - and said Friday had been “one of New Zealand’s darkest days”. Police commissioner Mike Bush said explosive devices in a car had been defused and urged all mosques across the country to close their doors for the time being.

 Tarrant, the 28-year-old, Australia born asshole,  actually helped prosecutors when they got hold of his live stream footage on Facebook, showing him driving to a mosque then opening fire. 

Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison, called the massacre a “rightwing extremist attack”- which is spot on.  But one wishes he'd have gone further and pointed to Trump as the immediate source of the White nationalist cesspool.

The toxic change since Trump's arrival has also been documented and verified by the SPLC .  The organization (to which I belong) has found the number of U.S. hate groups hit a record high last year at 1.020.  Most appalling, the number has jumped 30 percent since 2014, and followed three consecutive years of decline following President Obama's time in office.  The center also noted: "The rise in hate movement coincides with President Trump's campaign and presidency."

I know the average American has the attention span of a gnat, and even less memory of recent political events, far less historical or violent ones. But it shouldn't be too much of a stretch or mental demand  to recall the incendiary words of the Swine-in-chief  often just before major massacres or displays, such as the Synagogue massacre by Robert Bowers. 

Is Trump partly responsible for triggering these murderous misfits? Is the Sun a star?  Does a bear shit in the woods? Is gravity real? Dotard has regularly called reporters "enemies of the people" and encouraged his zombies to "knock the crap out of protesters". A good summary of Trump's rhetoric, in speeches and ties to Neo-Nazis, appeals to White Nationalists can be found here.

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism

Former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal  put it  best on MSNBC  last month after the Hasson bust::

"All the accounts together show that Trump is engaged in a serial murder of the Constitution and rule of law. He fires anyone investigating him who wants to seek the truth,  whether it's McCabe or whether it's Comey or even Jeffrey Sessions. He puts in place constitutional jokes like Matthew Whitaker.  He tries to discredit and destroy investigations.  He dangles pardons at people who could help him out in any trials. He declares national emergencies without warrant. He discredits judges. All together  this is someone who is unfit to discharge his duties as our chief executive officer."

Oh, and let's not forget his most recent outbursts and threats of violence!   

As exposed by blogger Cody Fenwick (see first link below):

"Speaking with Breitbart News, President Donald Trump delivered a garbled but nevertheless disturbing statement in an article published Thursday that many interpreted as a prediction — or possibly a threat — of political violence. Though the outlet didn’t provide an outright transcript or quote the questions Trump was responding to, it said the following remark came in a discussion about “how the left is fighting hard”:

“You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that’s all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this.”

And assorted poor thinkers are unable to process how it is so many crazies, murderous mutts and degenerates are unleashed in his name!

See also:

Donald Trump

‘A Threat of Fascist Violence’: Trump’s Ominous Comments to Breitbart Reveal His Worst Impulses

AND:
New Zealand’s Prime Minister Asked Trump to Do Just This One Thing after the Mosque Attack — and He Completely Failed

And:

David Leonhardt

It Isn’t Complicated: Trump Encourages Violence

Excerpt:

"I’m well aware of the various see-no-evil attempts to excuse this behavior: That’s just how he talks. Don’t take him literally. Other Republicans are keeping him in check. His speeches and tweets don’t really matter. 

But they do matter. The president’s continued encouragement of violence — and of white nationalism — is part of the reason that white-nationalist violence is increasing. Funny how that works."