Patterico's Pontifications

7/19/2019

Republican Senators Call For Antifa To Be Designated As A Hate Group

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:36 am



[guest post by Dana]

In the aftermath of recent violent attacks by Antifa, including an attack on journalist Andy Ngo in Portland last month, which left him with a brain hemorrhage, and the recent firebomb attack on an immigration center in Tacoma, Sens. Ted Cruz and Bill Cassidy of Lousiana have introduced a resolution to designate Antifa a hate group:

“Antifa is a group of hateful, intolerant radicals who pursue their unhinged agenda through aggressive violence,” said Cruz, who filed the measure alongside Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Lousiana. “Time and time again their actions have demonstrated that their only purpose is to inflict harm on those who oppose their views.”

“The hate and violence they spread must be stopped, and I am proud to introduce this resolution with Senator Cassidy to properly identify what Antifa are: domestic terrorists,” he added.

Sen. Cassidy wrote:

Antifa is a domestic terror organization. This is a group of hateful, intolerant radicals pursuing their extreme agenda through violence. They are masked bigots, attacking others b/c they don’t agree with their ideas. The time to stop Antifa is NOW!

Here is how the resolution reads:

Untitled

Unsurprisingly, the most visible group monitoring hate groups, still refuses to designate Antifa as one:

The SPLC condemns violence in all its forms, including the violent acts of far-left street movements like antifa. But the propensity for violence, though present in many hate groups, is not among the criteria for listing. Also, antifa groups do not promote hatred based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

On a sidenote, in light of Antifa violence, and the recent attack on Andy Ngo by Antifa, Portland is now considering an anti-mask law:

City leaders in Portland, Ore., are considering making it illegal for protesters to wear masks in an attempt to address violent clashes between left-wing and right-wing activists, the latest of which occurred a few weeks ago.

Police Chief Danielle Outlaw first called for an antimask law after dueling protests on June 29, where a conservative writer said he was assaulted by members of the left-wing group Antifa, who frequently wear masks… “A lot of people are emboldened because they know they can’t be identified,” Ms. Outlaw said at a news conference.

A spokeswoman for Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said city officials have had initial discussions about outlawing the wearing of a mask to commit a crime or escape identification in the commission of a crime. Mr. Wheeler “wants to weigh his options thoroughly and hear concerns from community leaders before making a decision,” said Eileen Park, the spokeswoman.

Oregon’s ACLU is objecting to any potential anti-mask laws, citing First Amendment concerns:

“A policy that prohibits wearing a mask to a protest not only risks chilling First Amendment-protected activities, particularly for those who wear ‘masks’ for political and religious reasons, it misses the issue entirely,” spokeswoman Sarah Armstrong said in an email. “Behavior is the issue, not the mask.”

[Ed. I’ve bolded some portions where either the selected wording and/or actual claim need to be challenged… i.e. conservative writer “said” he was assaulted – he didn’t just say, he was. There is plenty of video confirming it happened…]

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

51 Responses to “Republican Senators Call For Antifa To Be Designated As A Hate Group”

  1. Good morning.

    Dana (bb0678)

  2. There is plenty of video confirming it happened…

    The video I’ve seen starts while the scuffle is already in progress, and the guy who recorded it actually says “didn’t see how this started”.

    So while there’s little doubt in my mind that an Antifa thug was the aggressor, the distinction may be the reason for the more cautious wording.

    Dave (1bb933)

  3. “No masks” law would be appropriate. They’re appropriate for little kids on Halloween.

    Colonel Haiku (5243a2)

  4. Link in #2 broken by a typo, sorry. Trying again.

    Dave (1bb933)

  5. It’s already a Law on the books, or does John reeeds hometown chose to ignore that as well?

    Narciso (c67b88)

  6. I agree with Sarah from ACLU. Not only because of her First Amendment concerns which I share, but also because passing laws are what governments do instead of doing something. Like a police chief who is not Danielle Outlaw and a mayor who is not Ted Wheeler.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. Oh, and I forgot. The so-called Resolution is a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.

    nk (dbc370)

  8. Why if you’re wearing a mask and yielding a Billy club it’s not because you want to borrow a cup of sugar.

    Narciso (c67b88)

  9. A police chief named “Outlaw”?

    C’mon, who writes this stuff…

    Dave (1bb933)

  10. A resolution has no force of law, so it seems unlikely that could be unconstitutional.

    Dave (1bb933)

  11. *it could

    Dave (1bb933)

  12. The mask can be an enhancement or a factor in aggravation. But there must be a predicate crime first. In Illinois, it’s illegaler to wield a billy club while wearing a mask as opposed to wielding a billy club without a mask.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. nk, what do you think is a viable option to keep Antifa violence in check, as well as to be able to help those victimized by Antifa to be able to identify their attackers?

    Dana (bb0678)

  14. “Behavior is the issue, not the mask.”

    Does the mask embolden the individual by providing him with guaranteed anonymity, thus commits the crime?

    Dana (bb0678)

  15. The same methods the police use for street gangs, Dana. Surveillance, monitoring, informants, and intelligence collation and analysis, to begin with, and cops ready to jump in with their batons, Tasers, mace, and restraints when a demonstration turns violent.

    nk (dbc370)

  16. Does the mask embolden the individual by providing him with guaranteed anonymity, thus commits the crime?

    Yes, of course. That’s why they wear them, and that’s why it’s lawful to punish them more severely for wearing them during the commission of a crime.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. A content-neutral ban on masks in large public gatherings seems like a reasonable “time, manner and place” restriction under Ward, to me.

    Dave (1bb933)

  18. So far as I can see, the principle difference between Antifa and the Sturmabteilung, is that the Brownshirts had better fashion sense. They are both criminal organizations formed to suppress points of view opposing their political party through violence and property damage.

    C. S. P. Schofield (f7316d)

  19. “opposing their political party”

    what political party would that be?

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  20. Living in a state where an anti-mask law has been enforced (against the KKK), I don’t have 1st amendment objections to these laws. The intent of the mask is intimidation — the idea that a masked villain can beat you up, and you won’t be able to tell the cops who.

    For the legal lay of the land, here is a summary:

    https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1169/anti-mask-laws

    Appalled (c9622b)

  21. Obviously, this resolution is racist since it targets people of pallor.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  22. Thanks, appalled, I was going to mention the KKK, and then forgot to.

    Dana (bb0678)

  23. Good political move by the GOP.

    Paul Montagu (dbd3cc)

  24. I mention John Reed, because he was the twit that couldn’t tell the difference between a coup against the provisional govt and a revolution, just the kind of clue less morons you still find up there

    Narciso (c67b88)

  25. Also, antifa groups do not promote hatred based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Just on the basis of presumed political opinion.. or sometimes presumed hatred, on the part of the people they hate, on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Sammy Finkelman (e4c0a6)

  26. UPS
    Brownshirts

    mg (8cbc69)

  27. ‘Republican Senators Call For ANTIFA To Be Designated A Hate Group’

    Hate group; takes one to know one, eh, fellas?!

    “Send her back! Send her back!” – GOP chanters at Trump Rally, Greenville, NC, 7-18-19

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. The Ku Klux Klan wore masks or hoods while they marched in streets, terrorized minorities, burned crosses, lynched African-Americans, and bombed black churches. Weren’t they a hate group, a domestic terrorist organization? It wasn’t too long ago, their membership numbered in the millions.

    There’s a documentary on the Discovery channel, The Mafia and the KKK. It’s very interesting, in that the latter empowered the former. It’s a common misconception that women drove the Temperance movement, and that they passed Prohibition once they won the right to vote in 1920, with the ratification of the 19th amendment. Actually, Prohibition was passed by the KKK, as was the moratorium on immigration around the same time. It was all part of their puritanical mission to purify the white race and keep America white.

    All Prohibition accomplished was it gave the Mafia a high profit motive. Well, actually the Mob, or organized crime–the Mafia is pure Sicilian, whereas the Mob is multi-ethnic. It didn’t take long for the Mafia and the Mob to set up distilleries, smuggling routes, and distribution points. That was all done while the 18th amendment was being considered, and it was ratified before the 19th.

    Talk about telegraphing an opportunity. Everyone knew alcohol was about to be prohibited, and everyone, except ignorant Klansmen and their supplicant political toadies, knew that the people were not going to stop drinking. People have been drinking wine, beer and distilled spirits for thousands of years. In fact, alcohol was an apothecary for centuries; gin and whiskey were both termed “the waters of life.” So the Mafia/Mob provided the people with what they had always used but were now denied. An act of Congress is not going to stop people from drinking alcohol.

    The distribution points were the Speak Easies, underground clubs. All were invited, everyone was welcome, the Mafia/Mob does not discriminate–as long as you pay the cover and don’t cause any problems.

    Prior to Prohibition, immigrants lived in immigrant communities, like Little Italy, Little Chiaa, Little Russia, Little What-Have-You. Ethnic groups associated with themselves, because they share common languages, mores and cuisines. The Speak Easies were where variant ethnic groups first associated.

    It was a party, and everyone was just there to have fun. It’s where the various ethnic groups first interacted. It’s where Jazz, the only truly American form of music, developed.

    So, underground you have the people, interacting peacefully with each other, drinking, dancing, enjoying music, and having a good time. Above ground you have the KKK marching around, proclaiming superiority. How did that work out?

    Well, the Mafia/Mob made quadrillions. The KKK went bankrupt. But not before they passed the illicit drug law act of 1938, in conjunction with timber and cotton growers, pharmaceutical and plastic companies. It was all about monopolies on the paper, fabric, drug, and ceramic industries.

    How did Prohibition 2.0 work out? Well, it gave us the War on Drugs.

    Are you kidding me? It’s not like the Mafia/Mob didn’t already have the smuggling routes and distribution points set up, before Prohibition 2.0 was passed, and it’s not it’s passage wasn’t telegraphed. The result is that the Mafia/Mob, and now the Cartels, are making quadrillions, while the government is wasting trillions in a failed attempt at law enforcement. People are not going to stop using drugs, anymore than they’re going to stop drinking alcohol.

    It’s insane. You cannot stop people from doing what they are going to do. You cannot. People are going to drink alcohol, people are going to use drugs, as they have for thousands of years, no matter what the law is. The Mafia/Mob/Cartel knows this. The Politicians/Party/Government does not.

    This resolution is meaningless. It’s nothing more than posturing, and most pathetic at that. Antifa, Neo-Nazis, Alt-Left and Alt-Right, are nothing compared to the KKK back in the day. They’re like the Weather Underground, a small group of failed revolutionaries, whose only success was in causing mayhem for a short while.

    Ignore them. They are of no consequence. Yeah, they might cause some damage, but no more than any other little radical group.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  29. A police chief named “Outlaw”?

    C’mon, who writes this stuff…

    There used to be a judge in NY named Lawless.

    Bored Lawyer (44d9c7)

  30. are you really this ignorant,

    http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/h-3235

    how about harry anslinger or senator Harrison,

    narciso (d1f714)

  31. Antifa means anti fascists. There is a picture of d-day landing craft with the caption anti fascists attacking a large group of nazi’s! Nuremberg is now in north carolina.

    lany (adb800)

  32. I try not to call them that or the resistance, I call them black bloc.

    Narciso (c67b88)

  33. In seeking this resolution, Cruz is practicing politics, not law. If it were intended to be used to allow the government to skip steps in some future prosecution, that would be legally problematic for the reasons nk has identified. But instead it’s intended to put congress-critters on record on something they’d rather duck; it might get to the floor of the Senate for a vote there, but it will never see the light of day in the House, of course.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  34. “Behavior is the issue, not the mask.”

    An interesting sentiment. How about:

    1) Behavior is the issue, not the gun.
    2) Behavior is the issue, not the race of the criminal and policeman.
    3) Behavior is the issue, not the political views of the protester
    4) Behavior is the issue, not whether we like the immigration law or not.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  35. Put the Democrats on RECORD as supporting AntiFa. We know they do. Lets just get it official.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  36. BTW, I think its OUTRAGEOUS that Cruz might be engaged on politics. How dare he. Him a politician. An NO – THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON ANYONE HERE.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  37. Put the Democrats on RECORD as supporting AntiFa. We know they do. Lets just get it official.

    They’d be on the record as…not being for stupid? OK. Which your previous comment shows you already knew.

    An interesting sentiment. How about:

    1) Behavior is the issue, not the gun. Yeah
    2) Behavior is the issue, not the race of the criminal and policeman. Duh.
    3) Behavior is the issue, not the political views of the protester Really, that’s how it works
    4) Behavior is the issue, not whether we like the immigration law or not. Exactly

    So are you for arresting a gun, a race? If you’re against that, then you should be against this.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  38. “‘Republican Senators Call For ANTIFA To Be Designated A Hate Group’

    Hate group; takes one to know one, eh, fellas?!

    “Send her back! Send her back!” – GOP chanters at Trump Rally, Greenville, NC, 7-18-19″

    Send DCSCA back to the USSR until he learns to make a proper comparison.

    Advocat (81f943)

  39. Send DCSCA back to the USSR until he learns to make a proper comparison.

    He’s Trump’s biggest fan.

    Because reasons.

    Dave (1bb933)

  40. As long as the mask law is enforced in a content neutral manner it’s an obviously good idea. Too many people use anonymity to get away with violence and vandalism at these protests. If anything, a mask ban protects free speech.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  41. Dustin,

    I’d like to hear more about how you think an anti-mask law protects free speech. I’m torn because I think our laws should default to individual liberties as much as possible and having an anti-mask law government making a law to determine how the speech of others is to be executed. On the other hand, a mask has proven to be a deterrent to identifying, arresting and prosecuting individuals for their violent acts against innocent individuals who are also exercising their own rights. Further, how is this any different than states with anti-mask laws as a result of the KKK?

    Dana (bb0678)

  42. Well, it’s pretty simple in my opinion: you can say anything you wish to say with words, signs, and symbols. I know of now message where you need to conceal your face to say it. If there was such a message, a sign with a picture of the mask would do the trick just fine.

    On the other hand, some people who have attended protests have been assaulted by people wearing masks, which has a chilling effect on free speech. Going to an exchange of words is no longer a matter of words. You might get a concrete “milkshake” thrown at your head.

    That can happen with our without masks, but anyone trying to attack free speech is fundamentally a coward. They are using violence as a cheap shortcut around reason. And masks mean less accountability, and therefore promote cowardice.

    The government has an interest in public safety and protecting us from violence, and at some point that’s even an exception to the first amendment (Chaplinksy). A mask ban supports that angle at the cost of a minimal impact on expressing ideas.

    And also, it’s 2019 and the real debate isn’t held via screaming into megaphones and chanting rhymes. It’s in discussion forums online. The people going to protests aren’t trying to get their voices out there. You can do that better with a clever hashtag. A lot of people go to protests for reasons inherently more volatile. They have every right to do it, but the government should try to keep it safe, at least if it can do so constitutionally.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  43. @39. Your party has been lederhosened, Jack.

    @40. Reasons: ratings.

    Welcome to 1964, kids.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. I think when the Warren court decided in tinker, that gestures like armbands substituted for speech a point furthered in Johnson was one step too far

    Narciso (c67b88)

  45. Welcome to 1964, kids.

    Does that mean the left is going to start bombing government buildings in about 4 years?

    Factory Working Orphan (eebac7)

  46. But instead it’s intended to put congress-critters on record on something they’d rather duck;

    What it does is force the hand of Democrats to condemn Antifa with the same vigor when they accused Trump of failing to condemn marchers in Charlottesville. Thus far, the Squad has refused to condemn Antifa with regard to the firebombing of the immigration center in Tacoma.

    Dana (bb0678)

  47. If Cruz wants to show he loves America and American values, he’ll get out there and primary the orange.

    nk (dbc370)

  48. @ Dave,

    The video I’ve seen starts while the scuffle is already in progress, and the guy who recorded it actually says “didn’t see how this started”.

    Joesph Berstein at Buzzfeed News has written a long piece about Andy Ngo. He shadowed Ngo while he was filming in Portland and was with him before, during, and after the attack. He says that Ngo did not provoke the attack:

    The former debate turns on the extent to which Ngo deliberately provokes angry and violent responses from anti-fascists. I was with Ngo, watching him, from an hour before he entered the demonstration until an hour after he arrived at a Portland hospital to be treated for his injuries. Nothing he did that day suggested that he planned or even secretly wanted to be assaulted, which has been a common enough refrain in the days since from some on the left. The attack was not provoked.

    Dana (bb0678)

  49. Dana,

    As I said, I personally am as sure as I can be about anything I didn’t witness myself that the Antifa thugs attacked Ngo and not the other way around.

    Dave (1bb933)

  50. nk @ 48,

    Per Cruz, there’s an opening… perhaps he is getting into position??

    Dana (bb0678)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2845 secs.