Nicker on 15/1/2009 at 07:23

---

That’s how you’d think it should go in the USA, dethtoll. But IIRC the real script is more like:

POLICE: Is that a peace symbol on your t-shirt?

REALLY OLD LAWYER or ARMED FORCES VETRAN: Yes it is Officer.

POLICE: You’re busted!

(http://www.counterpunch.org/ferner07012006.html)

(http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/)

(http://wilderside.wordpress.com/2008/05/23/peace-at-the-mall-don-zirkels-statement-about-t-shirt-arrest/)

In fairness, the justification for the above arrests was that a mall is a private place and whom may abide there and what they may wear is determined solely at the discrimination of the owner. How does that sit with you?

*****

Now my understanding of the German event was that the student placed the flag, knowing full well that a protest march was scheduled, then left his apartment and waited across the street to document the reaction, out of the path of the anticipated violence. He exposed other people in the apartment to danger whilst apparently unwilling to expose himself to the result of his own provocation.

If he’d been on the street waving that flag (or any flag anathema to a large crowd of angry protestors), or if his home had been a detached house, and the police had taken his flag, that’s another matter.

I am not justifying the violent reaction of the marchers but neither does their impropriety excuse this guy exposing others to the likelihood of violence as a result of his provocation. That’s kind of like using civilian as shields whilst firing rockets at a superior and enraged enemy. Know what I mean?

In practical terms, any standard apartment lease does NOT entitle the tenant to engage in conduct likely to threaten the safety, or even disturb the “quiet enjoyment”, of the other tenants. In such a case, where damage or harm is likely and imminent, it is within the rights (and is probably the obligation) of the owners of the building to act, or to permit actions, to prevent destruction of property and danger to the other tenants, including entering the apartment in question.


We now return this thread to the irresolvable issue of the Arabs and the Jews…

june gloom on 15/1/2009 at 07:40

---

RE: mall thing:

That suits me fine. First amendment rights do not apply to privately owned places such as malls.

june gloom on 15/1/2009 at 08:03

---

That's a bit of a leap of logic. Care to explain?

Nicker on 15/1/2009 at 08:47

---

I don't detect a leap, just a step from one assertion to the next.

If, by your reasoning, the owner of a mall can determine the conduct of its patrons, why cannot the owner of an apartment building do the same? What makes an apartment so much different that freedom of speech extends to it but not the mall?

Nicker on 15/1/2009 at 09:43

---

Chimpy, I think that's why it's unfair to characterise the actions of the German Police on the scene as fascist tactics and censorship. The protesters should have kept their cool (but then so should everybody in this conflict...) and no action should have been necessary by the police. But the protesters did react and someone on the scene had to make a choice.

I don't believe they acted to assert any sort of German state-think on the Middle East. They acted to diffuse what they believed was a dangerous situation in an expedient manner. Perhaps they could have handled it differently but I have not heard any practical suggestions as to what they might have done, least of all from their most strident critics.

Take the same story and exchange the adversaries - A Hamas flag and a pro-Israeli march. How would that have played out in the press?

This won't be the last time that the ideal and the practical will clash.