I've outlined some of BLM's and ARA's demands here. The goal is to stop the killing of innocent blacks like what happened in Milwaukee a few days ago but that's just the beginning. We fight also for other oppressed minorities like Muslims and some of are demands are:
- Stop portraying blacks and Muslims as thugs and terrorists in the media. France has already stopped publishing terrorists' names so I think it is Canada's moral obligation to do the same. Any media outlet that posts a picture or name of a so called Muslim "terrorist" should be banned for inciting hatred against Muslims. Same thing for blacks. I'm against censorship but the media has to know what they can and cannot publish since they have a responsibility.
- Ban all non-progressive candidates/parties from running. Nazis like Trump and Harper should therefore be excluded from the voting ballot including their fascist parties.
- Redistrubtion of land and wealth to give oppressed minorities a fairer playing ground.
- Stop jailing black people
- More oppressed minorities in police, universities, congress, the courts etc
- Government funding for the BLM movement. Yes I know the conservative Nazis will say "I ain't giving my tax dollars" but in countries like Sweden, Germany and Holland Antifa protesters is funded by the Green party, Social Democrats that are in parliament in order to make sure that the cities remain a Nazi free zone. The people there don't complain about their "tax money" because they know what's good for them.
'Jeff,' I'm not sure about the extent to which you represent BLM, or their ideals; I'll direct this reply to you anyway but hopefully some others might want to chip in.
If this is truly what you want, then you don't want to live in a modern liberal democracy. Looking at your list, you seem keen to use an extremely heavy hand to ban, punish or silence people or voices that you disagree with. This is worrying, and in modern history these sorts of impulses (banning political parties, re-possessing land, censoring the press) have not taken us to good places.
One of the most challenging, and at the same time, miraculous, developments of post-enlightenment society is that everyone gets a voice. Political parties who you personally find contemptible are in fact allowed to run, and you're free to denounce them publicly and vote for someone else. Newspapers are allowed wide latitude because a free press is crucial to a liberal democracy. You may wish to be rid of these things, but you're advocating a fundamental break from modern liberal society; I've spent time in countries like that, and they're places I'd rather not live in.
Practically, I wonder how you imagine operationalizing some of these demands. Who decides which political parties should be banned? Which names can the newspapers print? Is it ok to print bin Laden's name? Or Timothy McVeigh? Why, or why not? Why constitutes an acceptable number of 'oppressed minorities' in the police, universities, etc? Who decides who is a member of an oppressed minority? Which land should be redistributed? Whose should be taken away, and who should it be given to?
Again, Poe's Law being what it is, I'm not sure whether this message is missing the point. Regardless, I'd be interested in your reply.
