On Saturday morning, about 40 white supremacists gathered on the lawn of L.A's city hall to protest against immigration and to enforce stricter immigration laws. They gathered with signs that read "Sieg Heil", shouted out anti-immigration tirades and waved swastika flags. The rally was conducted by the National Socialist Movement and closely monitored by the Los Angeles Police Department.
They were responded by huge amounts of counter protest groups which included a wide variety of African American, Jewish, Latino, immigrants-rights and anarchist groups. The counter protest groups ended up being 10 to 1 to the supremacists, basically overwhelming the supremacist's group of only 40.
But ironically, it was the counter protest groups that ended up being in trouble. Dozens of protesters punched and kicked the supremacists, throwing rocks and bottles not only at the supremacists but also at the neighboring police. A few members of the protesters were arrested due to the violence.
I still cannot understand how this country allows for groups such as these to continue to rally. I understand that it is a part of freedom of speech to access a permit and to rally, but a neo nazi group, really? If there is a high chance that a group that professes racist ideals will rally and bring about an out-pour of violence, then why allow such a rally? It is even scarier that this occurred in one of the most popular cities of the U.S.
Link http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/white-supremacist-rally-at-los-angeles-city-hall-draw-hundreds-of-counter-protestors.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I can't believe it is 2010 and there is still so much racial prejudice in the world. My friends saw an actual KKK member out in public wearing a white hood in Berkeley the other day, and I was completely surprised and disgusted that people still did that.
wow that intense. thats dissapointing that the "counter" groups had to resort to violence---which only spreads hate (exactly what the other groups are getting mad at the white supremacists groups for). this is horrible that hate groups still exist, but sadly i think humans will always find reasons to hate differnt groups of people.
Its upsetting that the counter protesting groups were those who got in trouble, but i hate to admit that i can see why they became violent. These groups especially have dealt with enough in history and to even allow supremecy groups (free speech or not, that is HATE) to be that vocal should not happen in this century
I understand that it's freedom of speech, but I can't believe there's still groups like these that exist. I agree with Sally. If I were the counter protesters, I would be pretty mad as well. Whether or not I would take action is a different story. I'm surprised that the supremacists didn't fight back, considering they can't stand other races.
Wow, I just did my paper on the subject of hate groups and freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the White Supremacists weren't doing anything illegal, even if it was unethical.
Even a place like California has hate groups. Actually, California has the second highest number of hate groups, behind Texas which has 66, and ahead of Florida who has 51.
It's ironic that a lot of media attention is given to Islamic militant groups and their hate of Americans, and relatively little to groups of Americans who hate other groups.
It still astounds me how many hate groups there are (KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, National Socialist Movement) in the U.S., and the animosity these groups carry (e.g. Westboro's website is www.godhatesfags.com and they have pictures of little kids holding signs saying "You're going to Hell!"). But freedom of expression is one of our fundamental rights (strict scrutiny!). What I wonder, however, is where the line is drawn. In Near v. Minnesota, even a blatantly defamatory newspaper written as a man described as highly racist was not allowed to be censored. Do people still have a right to freedom of expression if it impinges on others' freedom to happiness, security, etc.?
Still, I don't think the counter protesters reacted correctly. By reacting violently, it only serves to solidify the protesters' opinions, and is really, probably not the most effective way to counter protest (e.g. 1960's Martin Luther King Jr.'s nonviolent civil rights movement helped much more that Malcolm X's extremist movement).
So ridiculous, yes. But I don't expect the rules pertaining to freedom of expression to change anytime soon, so it seems like the only hope is that people will just learn to grow up and accept others.
Wow...I find it sad that the LAPD "monitored" the rally instead of stopping it. I guess they had not broken the law or "disrupted the peace" in that sense. Although I do understand why the protest groups reacted the way they did, it would have been better to resist violence. The most influential leaders such as MLK and Ghandi were able to promote non violence and through this non violent protest, moved thousands of people. The march to Burmingham and the boycott of buses were all ways to fight for their beliefs but non violently. Unfortunately, like Kristyn said, something so non violent could encourage extremist groups like Malcolm X
I can't believe there are still people today who would dare to wave swastika flags and be so racist in such a way. America wouldn't be the great country it is without diversity.
-Emily Niemann
The reason we "allow" them to meet and congregate is because we have to...I Think we should just stop feeding the real life trolls.. like if media didnt give them attention they probably would keep to their secluded little racist holes... just sayin
-Tim dyer
Post a Comment