Is violence against fascists acceptable if it achives a noble goal?

The Battle Of Cable Street is a good example, anti fascist forces stopped Oswald Mosley from marching through Jewish parts of London.

In a free Democracy... it is absolutely unacceptable to use violence to suppress expression. Once you start using violence, you have violated the social contract upon which Democracy depends.

I would accept violence only after I have decided that Democracy is no longer possible... and once I did, I would lose the right to claim any benefit from civil rights.

What about WW2?

In the United States, Freedom of Expression is sacred. We take Constitutional rights seriously.

In 1978 Nazis wanted to march through Skokie Illinois. The town and state tried to stop them. The Nazis went to the courts to defend their right to freedom of expression.

The American Civil Liberties Union took up the case on the side of the Nazis. Ironically, the lead lawyer defending the Nazis was David Goldberger, who happened to be Jewish. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor. The Nazis have the right to freedom of expression including the right to display swastikas.

In the United States, we take civil right seriously. Civil rights are guaranteed for everyone regardless of their beliefs.

This is a damn good read.. it is the account of David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer who defended the Nazis. https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis

What about it? We won WW2.

You have a very warped idea of what a win is.

You don’t half talk a load of bollocks. If that were the case there would be no need for BLM and there wouldn’t be any protests right now.

And Martin Luther King would never have had to make his I have a dream speech.

It is an example of using violence against fascists. Something you have claimed is unacceptable.

You are confusing the need for protests (which I agree with) and the need for violence (which I don't agree with).

You’re not answering the question as always.

Evade and change the subject, anything to avoid honest debate.

The true mark of a Republican... evade,avoid, change the topic.

Honesty? Don't make them sweat, it ain't pretty!

Did you read my post. I clearly qualified it. Go read my post again.

I do think it is funny that you invoke Martin Luther King in a thread where you are justifying violence.

I am pretty sure that Martin Luther King was never a Republican.

I’ve mentioned Historical events, namely WW2 and the Battle Of Cable Street. I think violence was justified in those circumstances. Are you saying we should have surrendered to Hitler?

I mentioned Martin Luther King in response to your ridiculous claim about civil rights.

Again, sneaky and dishonest.

I said very clearly that I reject violence in the context of a "Free Democracy".

The fighting of WW2 was acceptable to me; it clearly wasn't in the context of a "Free Democracy".

The Battle of Cable Street was unacceptable (I just read about it). It is an example of mob rule. You will note that I am for the sake of this discussion treating England as a Free Democracy. I believe that in the Skokie case I listed.. the American Civil Liberties Union was 100% correct.

My opinion is clear and direct. I reject violence in the context of a "Free Democracy". I have a social contract as a member of a democratic society to support the rights of all within the rule of law, even when they don't agree with me.

On a slight tangent, a branch of my family are Quakers going back generations. They opposed the fighting of WW2 because they are pacifists. They oppose the use of any violence, even against Nazis. They had faith in God and in the goodness of humanity... that nonviolent resistance would have ended the Nazi regime.

I don't agree with them. But, I respect them. My belief is that in a democratic system, you address political differences (no matter how severe) using the rule of law.

Quakers and Mennonites died in Nazi Concentration camps. Their families and their community continued in their belief in non-violence.

It’s not an example of mob rule. It’s a community banding together to stop enemies of the community marching through the middle.

Moseley should never have been given permission to march.

I’m not surprised you’ve only just heard of Cable Street.

Why are you singling out England? What about the rest of the UK?

I was talking about America, not Massachusetts.

Can you explain the difference? If a community believes the "enemies of the community" are LGBT people.... you would call it mob rule. Communities have banded together against all kinds of enemies, from witches to anarchists.

Is it only "mob rule" when the community banding together disagrees with you?

On a side note, Richard Nixon was a Quaker. That sort of dissolves the wondrous beauty which you have ascribed to them.