From the shitty article, it's not clear who manages that list and gets to expand it. Is it the police or parliament or the judiciary? Also, no exploration of what the police want to add to the list.

Hopefully it's just low level gangs that don't make the national news headlines... but part of me suspects that it'll include any anti-establishment groups like Greenpeace and SAFE and the Palestinian flag any iwi and anyone else critical of the government.

Edit: sigh, I guess I have to word that second paragraph better. Try applying the lesson in this poem and see if you think this legislation could be expanded andused in a similar fashion t events it describes:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

We're at the first stanza, except it's "gangs".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] AWOL_muppet 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Charming... The main rule is 'don't be a dick', no need to come in strong.

You are correct that they had an 'emotional argument' (as opposed to a rational one - I'm sure there's better terms for these), but need you be so obnoxious about it?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -2 points 2 days ago

It's not that they had an emotional argument, it's that every comment I've seen from them lately has been off the deep end, and there's not really any nice way of telling them that.