Is it time to list ANTIFA as a criminal or terrorist organization?

[Genetk44]

Go to Ground News. https://ground.news/
It's all in one spot.

Thanks. I will definitely check it out.

 

[OldSolduer]

In fact, Antifa is a violent ideology. At its core violence is viewed as self-defense and many Antifa activists will argue that fascism is inherently violent and must be resisted directly. The slogan Antifa often uses is “By any means necessary.” so, they often narrate their actions, the street fights, the riots, the destruction of property, as preventive self-defense against fascist violence. They also reject pacifism and will often criticize purely peaceful protest as ineffective against fascists. They will argue that direct action, which includes force, has historically been necessary.

So

The Peaceful Left?

Seriously the far left is as violent and malevolent as the far right.

 

[Kirkhill]

IMO, no. There’s nothing remotely close to some large scale or widespread organization called ‘Antifa’ acting with any sort of cohesive purpose towards criminal ends. It’s a flag or social media profile pic that occasionally gets waved by far left anti-authority clubs that may or may not have loose affiliations with each other, but there’s not some cohesive, organized entity that would come at all close to fitting the bill for an 83.05 terrorist listing or a crim org finding in court.

The notion of some widespread organized ‘Antifa’ that gets popularized on social media is mostly a boogeyman.

Just wondering.....

What does an anarchist organization look like?

 

[Brad Sallows]

So

The Peaceful Left?

Seriously the far left is as violent and malevolent as the far right.

The far right mostly hangs out in mountain fastnesses, walting in SOF costumes and preparing for an imagined revolution. The far left is on the streets living the dream every year. What was the last far right event on the scope and scale of BLM - during COVID, no less, essentially with the permission and tolerance of authorities claiming to be "centrist"?

 

[Halifax Tar]

This is the single best reference/new source you have shared on this site. Ever.

I love it. Bookmarked.

Well worth the subscription. Ground News and Spotify.

 

[ArmyRick]

This is the single best reference/new source you have shared on this site. Ever.

I love it. Bookmarked.

Ground news is awesome, it lays it all out and lets you even pick your political leanings if you want for news sources.

 

[mariomike]

I had never heard of Sellner until a few minutes ago when I read the article. As a secular,non-practising jew the first 3 paragraphs sent shivers down my spine…..half-way through the article I was nauseous. It’s just re-packaged Nazi ethnic racism slightly prettied-up with 21st century verbiage and cherry-picked photos. The whole proposal is dangerous and completely open to awful abuses of the most egregious kind.

My wife is Jewish , so this AJC article caught my eye,

Great Replacement Theory: Here’s What Jews Need to Know About White Supremacy

The Great Replacement is a conspiracy theory rooted in white supremacist ideology that claims there is an intentional effort, led by Jews, to make whites extinct. It has inspired massacres in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Christchurch, New Zealand, and Buffalo, New York.

www.ajc.org

Right before a car fatally plowed into protesters near a "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017, neo-Nazis chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

The problem I have with the decision by POTUS to brand them as terrorists is the same problem that I have with Antifa itself; who gets to decide who is fascist, and who gets to decide who is Antifa?

Good point - we see how little agreement there is about 1-2 people carrying certain flags/banners at rallies and how much that paints the rest of the crowd with the same brush.

Does one Confederate battle flag/banner = all tainted?

Does one USSR flag/banner = all tainted?

Does one Antifa flag/banner = all tainted?

Some will say "yes - the standard you walk by is the standard you accept," while others will say "you can't judge a big crowd by a few idiots who don't quite get it" (or "how do we know they're not false flagging?" (no pun intended there)).

The far right mostly hangs out in mountain fastnesses, walting in SOF costumes and preparing for an imagined revolution. The far left is on the streets living the dream every year. What was the last far right event on the scope and scale of BLM - during COVID, no less, essentially with the permission and tolerance of authorities claiming to be "centrist"?

Some would say these (even during COVID in some cases) ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack

Armed protesters demonstrate against Covid-19 lockdown at Michigan capitol

Police and capitol staff held back protesters – some armed with rifles – attempting to enter floor of legislative chamber

www.theguardian.com

Oregon State Capitol breach - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Health Freedom Idaho - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2020 Michigan State Capitol storming - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... and this

Canada convoy protest - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... might be at least in the same ballpark in scale or scope, no?

 

[The Bread Guy]

In fact, Antifa is a violent ideology. At its core violence is viewed as self-defense and many Antifa activists will argue that fascism is inherently violent and must be resisted directly. The slogan Antifa often uses is “By any means necessary.” so, they often narrate their actions, the street fights, the riots, the destruction of property, as preventive self-defense against fascist violence. They also reject pacifism and will often criticize purely peaceful protest as ineffective against fascists. They will argue that direct action, which includes force, has historically been necessary.

Could be, but the question could also be put (not just to you in particular, but to anyone wanting the designation) in this way:

Isn't it enough that what happens at Antifa protests that can't be handled by existing CCC bits on assault/violence, property damage, mischief, masking up at riots/illegal gatherings/disguises during crimes?

What else can be gained by officially calling them "terrorists"?

Kicking them in the financial nuts could be useful, as is done with terror rules, but is there already other ways to nail them that way? If the funding is as decentralized as their "organization," may be difficult, but I ask because I'm not familiar with that side of Canada's bad-folk management regime.

 

[lenaitch]

Could be, but the question could also be put (not just to you in particular, but to anyone wanting the designation) in this way:

Isn't it enough that what happens at Antifa protests that can't be handled by existing CCC bits on assault/violence, property damage, mischief, masking up at riots/illegal gatherings/disguises during crimes?

What else can be gained by officially calling them "terrorists"?

Kicking them in the financial nuts could be useful, as is done with terror rules, but is there already other ways to nail them that way? If the funding is as decentralized as their "organization," may be difficult, but I ask because I'm not familiar with that side of Canada's bad-folk management regime.

I'm not really current with the legislation and authority of the government surrounding identifying and sanctioning terrorist or criminal organizations, but I still maintain that the concept of 'organization' has yet to be established with respect to Antifa. Going after an organization in terms of sanctioning things like funding, assets, support, etc. is one thing, but if you are going to start rounding up people marching down the street and charging them as being members of a particularly terrorist group, you're going to need the evidence.

Carrying a flag or using a phrase probably isn't going to do it. Back in the '70s and '80s, seeing university student residences using the US Confederate flag as a curtain was not uncommon. It didn't mean they were followers or supporters. A quick Google search revealed all sorts of sites selling Nazi memorabilia. A good percentage of people in protest marches often aren't really aligned with whatever the cause is; they're just into protest marches.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some would say these (even during COVID in some cases) ....

... might be at least in the same ballpark in scale or scope, no?

Each, yes. BLM went on for months.

[My OP was unclear: by "event" I didn't mean a single protest event; I meant the totality of a series of protests focused on a particular cause.]

 

[brihard]

I'm not really current with the legislation and authority of the government surrounding identifying and sanctioning terrorist or criminal organizations, but I still maintain that the concept of 'organization' has yet to be established with respect to Antifa. Going after an organization in terms of sanctioning things like funding, assets, support, etc. is one thing, but if you are going to start rounding up people marching down the street and charging them as being members of a particularly terrorist group, you're going to need the evidence.

Dammit @lenaitch , you’re gonna make me be a nerd on a Sunday morning?

Legally speaking, Canada doesn’t list ‘groups’ or ‘organizations’. We list ‘terrorist entities’ (although ‘terrorist group’ exists in our law and I’ll get to that). Start with 83.05 of the Criminal Code: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html

• 83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
  • (a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or
  • (b) the entity has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a). [This basically captures affiliates and offshoots]

So- two really key things there, ‘entity’, and ‘terrorist activity’. So we follow this to 83.01, the definitions section for terrorism stuff:

83.01 (1) “entity means a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization.”

As written this can even go all the way down to a single person. In practice, generally it’s been applied to groups with some degree of organization but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a lot. But what’s ’terrorist activity’? This one’s longer:

83.01 (1) “terrorist activity means

• (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:

- [A laundry list follows essentially saying acts that contravene treaties on hijacking, hostage taking, attacking maritime stuff, diplomats etc.]

• (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
  • (i) that is committed
    • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
    • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
  • (ii) that intentionally
    • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
    • (B) endangers a person’s life,
    • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
    • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
    • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

[And I’ve snipped a bit after that]

That’s a lot. So what does it actually mean? “Terrorists activity” is a bit of a ‘choose your own adventure’ that can capture a lot of conduct. Fundamentally it contains two prongs: the purpose and the act.

In 83.01(b)(i), the ‘purpose prong’, simplified, there must be a political/religious/ideological purpose, and there must be the intent to intimidate the public or compelling the government or a group to do or not do somethingz

In 83.01(b)(ii), the ‘act prong’, simplifies, they must intentionally either cause death or serious harm with violence, or endangers life, or causes serious risk to public health and safety, OR risks those same outcomes by substantial property damage, OR causes serious stoppage to essential infrastructure BUT NOT as an act of protest/advicacy/work stoppage that isn’t intended to cause those harms.

It’s a lot, and the flow chart is almost as bad as toques and gloves. But basically there’s gotta be real intent to cause really serious hurt or harm or a serious risk thereof, and it has to be with that political or ideological purpose. There’s a broad carve out for acts of protest or demonstrations where those very serious harms are not the intent. I think that’s a key element for this discussion we’re in here.

Now, ‘Terrorist Group’ does also exist in the crim code:

“terrorist group means

• (a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or
• (b) a listed entity,”

So that’s short and sweet, and basically just loops right back. It’s a useful term because of offences like financing and facilitation.

So, why do we recognizes both ‘groups’ and ‘entities’? Well, ‘group’ can be established in an individual case based on the facts, groups can emerge ad hoc, groups we’ve never heard of of can appear for the first time ever via a spectacular bombing. Crown then needs to prove all the definitions in court.

By listing entities based on known prior activity, the Minuster basically does the definitional leg work ahead of time. We don’t need to wait for Hezbollah or Atomwaffen to carry out a mass shooting in Canada and then prove all of the ideological stuff. We have listen them in advance based on known activity, so should someone act on their behalf, that part of the prosecution is cleaner. It also makes it easier to criminalize financing and funding activities.

Just about everything for terrorism can be found in sections 83.xx of the Criminal Code. It’s a lot. I’ve skimmed a couple key definitions only.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

 

[Genetk44]

A bit of minimal research I did this weekend, apparently the US has no statutes dealing with “ domestic terrorism or terrorist” as far as what Trump or this discussion mean. They only have such statutes and laws dealing with foreign based terrorism/terrorists. So basically Trumps pronouncements are just meaningless feel-good hot-air to satisfy his base.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Two articles: The first one is from Reason Magazine looking at President Trump's attempt to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization.

The second is a March 2021 article produced by CBSNews about how Antifa is organized.

What does it mean for Trump to designate Antifa a 'terrorist organization'?

America doesn’t have an official list of domestic terrorist organizations, but the declaration could mean heavier political surveillance.

reason.com

What is antifa? Is it a group or an idea, and what do supporters want?

From Charlottesville to Portland, news media and politicians have obsessed over this group of activists. Here's what you need to know.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[The Bread Guy]

Tons of decent, accessible stuff out there on Antifa, much of it from the late 2010's-early 2020's ....

Examining Extremism: Antifa | Examining Extremism | CSIS

The Transnational Threats Project’s Examining Extremism series provides an overview and assessment of Antifa—a decentralized movement of individuals whose ideological roots lie in various left-wing causes, such as communism, anarchism, and socialism.

www.csis.org

Who Are Antifa, and Are They a Threat?

On May 31, President Trump announced he would designate Antifa as a terrorist organization. Antifa refers to a decentralized network of far-left militants that oppose fascists and racists, and CSIS data shows Antifa pose a relatively small threat in the United States.

www.csis.org

American Antifa: From Girl Scout to anarchist street warrior

An American woman's journey from Girl Scout to anarchist street warrior offers rare insight into the Antifa movement

www.reuters.com

The Rise of the Violent Left

Antifa's activists say they're battling burgeoning authoritarianism on the American right. Are they fueling it instead?

www.theatlantic.com

Antifa: the Anti-fascist Handbook – 'What Trump said made the book seem even more urgent'

Rushed into print after the US president said there were ‘fine people on both sides’ of the Charlottesville clashes, Mark Bray’s guide provides tactics for those hoping to ‘defeat the resurgent far right’

www.theguardian.com

Antifa in Canada: an origin story

This is the first part of a series about the rise of Antifa in Canada.

tnc.news

Some Canadian MSM on some key players ....

• Montréal Antifasciste - Google News
• Community Solidarity Ottawa - Google News
• Vancouver Against Fascism - Google News
• Community Solidarity Ottawa - Google News.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So

The Peaceful Left?

Seriously the far left is as violent and malevolent as the far right.

To be fair, clearly ANTIFA is making a distinction between itself, other fellow violent leftwing travellers and the "Greater unwashed, useless leftwing idiots". They look down on people who try to work and remain within the system.

 

[lenaitch]

Dammit @lenaitch , you’re gonna make me be a nerd on a Sunday morning?

Legally speaking, Canada doesn’t list ‘groups’ or ‘organizations’. We list ‘terrorist entities’ (although ‘terrorist group’ exists in our law and I’ll get to that). Start with 83.05 of the Criminal Code: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/FullText.html

• 83.05 (1) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, establish a list on which the Governor in Council may place any entity if, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the Governor in Council is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
  • (a) the entity has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity; or
  • (b) the entity has knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity referred to in paragraph (a). [This basically captures affiliates and offshoots]

So- two really key things there, ‘entity’, and ‘terrorist activity’. So we follow this to 83.01, the definitions section for terrorism stuff:

83.01 (1) “entity means a person, group, trust, partnership or fund or an unincorporated association or organization.”

As written this can even go all the way down to a single person. In practice, generally it’s been applied to groups with some degree of organization but it doesn’t necessarily have to be a lot. But what’s ’terrorist activity’? This one’s longer:

83.01 (1) “terrorist activity means

• (a) an act or omission that is committed in or outside Canada and that, if committed in Canada, is one of the following offences:

- [A laundry list follows essentially saying acts that contravene treaties on hijacking, hostage taking, attacking maritime stuff, diplomats etc.]

• (b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
  • (i) that is committed
    • (A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
    • (B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
  • (ii) that intentionally
    • (A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
    • (B) endangers a person’s life,
    • (C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
    • (D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
    • (E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

[And I’ve snipped a bit after that]

That’s a lot. So what does it actually mean? “Terrorists activity” is a bit of a ‘choose your own adventure’ that can capture a lot of conduct. Fundamentally it contains two prongs: the purpose and the act.

In 83.01(b)(i), the ‘purpose prong’, simplified, there must be a political/religious/ideological purpose, and there must be the intent to intimidate the public or compelling the government or a group to do or not do somethingz

In 83.01(b)(ii), the ‘act prong’, simplifies, they must intentionally either cause death or serious harm with violence, or endangers life, or causes serious risk to public health and safety, OR risks those same outcomes by substantial property damage, OR causes serious stoppage to essential infrastructure BUT NOT as an act of protest/advicacy/work stoppage that isn’t intended to cause those harms.

It’s a lot, and the flow chart is almost as bad as toques and gloves. But basically there’s gotta be real intent to cause really serious hurt or harm or a serious risk thereof, and it has to be with that political or ideological purpose. There’s a broad carve out for acts of protest or demonstrations where those very serious harms are not the intent. I think that’s a key element for this discussion we’re in here.

Now, ‘Terrorist Group’ does also exist in the crim code:

“terrorist group means

• (a) an entity that has as one of its purposes or activities facilitating or carrying out any terrorist activity, or
• (b) a listed entity,”

So that’s short and sweet, and basically just loops right back. It’s a useful term because of offences like financing and facilitation.

So, why do we recognizes both ‘groups’ and ‘entities’? Well, ‘group’ can be established in an individual case based on the facts, groups can emerge ad hoc, groups we’ve never heard of of can appear for the first time ever via a spectacular bombing. Crown then needs to prove all the definitions in court.

By listing entities based on known prior activity, the Minuster basically does the definitional leg work ahead of time. We don’t need to wait for Hezbollah or Atomwaffen to carry out a mass shooting in Canada and then prove all of the ideological stuff. We have listen them in advance based on known activity, so should someone act on their behalf, that part of the prosecution is cleaner. It also makes it easier to criminalize financing and funding activities.

Just about everything for terrorism can be found in sections 83.xx of the Criminal Code. It’s a lot. I’ve skimmed a couple key definitions only.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

Sorry.

There’s a broad carve out for acts of protest or demonstrations where those very serious harms are not the intent. I think that’s a key element for this discussion we’re in here.

Very much so. I think some would prefer protesters either claiming the banner or even just wearing the swag of a particular group (i.e. Antifa) to be arrested simply on that basis. I doubt they give out wallet-sized membership cards.