Trump orders statues be protected from 'mob rule'

Watch
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
A novel approach to a bit of hooliganism :lol:. Normally i'd be rather dubious as to how such a law would ever be enforced but given some of the eye watering sentences handed out for potty offences like having a bit of weed, well.
Then again, ones sympathy is not exactly on the side of those trying to smash every statue they can lay their hands on so meh.


On a side note, i wonder if he ever considered that one of the reasons people keep calling him a 'wannabe dictator' is because, like here, he keeps trying to rule by decree


US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order calling for protesters who target monuments to be imprisoned.
The measure says anyone who damages a public statue must be prosecuted to the "fullest extent of the law".
Mr Trump's order also calls for withholding federal funds from local jurisdictions and police departments that fail to stop such "mob rule".
A number of US statues have been pulled down since the police killing of an unarmed black man, George Floyd.
The president issued the order on Friday evening hours after he abruptly cancelled a planned trip to his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey, writing on Twitter that he would stay in Washington DC to "make sure LAW & ORDER is enforced".

The measure says: "Many of the rioters, arsonists, and left-wing extremists who have carried out and supported these acts have explicitly identified themselves with ideologies - such as Marxism - that call for the destruction of the United States system of government."
It accuses the protesters of "a deep ignorance of our history".
The order cites the recent targeting of a San Francisco bust to Ulysses S Grant, who owned a slave before he became Union Army commander and defeated the slave-owning Confederacy during the Civil War, a statue in Madison, Wisconsin, of an abolitionist immigrant who fought for the Union, and a Boston memorial commemorating an African-American regiment that fought in the same conflict.


"Individuals and organizations have the right to peacefully advocate for either the removal or the construction of any monument," the executive order says.
"But no individual or group has the right to damage, deface, or remove any monument by use of force."
It cites existing laws providing for up to 10 years in prison for anyone who damages federal property.
The order warns local jurisdictions that neglect to protect such monuments could face having their federal funding tied to public spaces withheld.


Police departments that have failed to guard statues from damage or vandalism could also lose such funds, the order warns.
It also states that anyone who "damages, defaces, or destroys religious property, including by attacking, removing, or defacing depictions of Jesus or other religious figures or religious art work" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The measure appears to refer to a recent Twitter post by prominent social justice activist Shaun King who wrote that "statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down".
The tweet added: "They are a form of white supremacy."


Monuments linked to the Confederacy have been especially targeted in the US amid the nationwide protests ignited by the death of Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a month ago.
President Trump has defended Confederate symbols as a part of American heritage.
Statues of Christopher Columbus, the 15th Century explorer whose voyages on behalf of Spain opened the way for the European colonisation of the Americas, have also been targeted as perceived symbols of imperialism.
Some state and local leaders have themselves taken action to remove Confederate symbols.
Earlier this month, Virginia's Governor Ralph Northam announced that a statue of Confederate General Robert E Lee would be taken down from the state capital in Richmond.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53201784
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
Gotta say, I kinda agree with him on this one
2
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
He lives in a country where the right to free speech is pretty much the very first law they came up with, and here he is limiting people's right to free speech.
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
"I'm sorry Mr Rape, but we weren't able to get you off the hook, the girl was black so that's ok and everyone realised you acted in self defence, but when her head was slamming your hand off the pavement you chipped a statue of Mr Slaver, you'll do 10 years for this..."
2
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
Agree with him entirely on this one. If only Boris had done the same. I mean, to be fair, it doesn’t matter. Law isn’t enforced in this country anyway.
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Drewski)
He lives in a country where the right to free speech is pretty much the very first law they came up with, and here he is limiting people's right to free speech.
Is destroying statues free speech now?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Is destroying statues free speech now?
In the US it is.
This is the country where money = speech and where the oft-challenged right to burn the flag has been judged to be protected by the first amendment. So by their own standards, yes.
Last edited by Drewski; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Agree with him entirely on this one. If only Boris had done the same. I mean, to be fair, it doesn’t matter. Law isn’t enforced in this country anyway.
Mr Johnson had cut police numbers in London whilst Mayor and so this hinders the police. He also created the Cummings defence for breaking rules about what you are permitted to do in the pandemic.
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Drewski)
He lives in a country where the right to free speech is pretty much the very first law they came up with, and here he is limiting people's right to free speech.
I'm sorry but, where in the EO does it say anything about 'limiting people's right to free speech?

Napp's quote reads:

"Individuals and organizations have the right to peacefully advocate for either the removal or the construction of any monument," the executive order says.

"But no individual or group has the right to damage, deface, or remove any monument by use of force."
It cites existing laws providing for up to 10 years in prison for anyone who damages federal property.
The order warns local jurisdictions that neglect to protect such monuments could face having their federal funding tied to public spaces withheld.
2
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Drewski)
In the US it is.
This is the country where money = speech and where the oft-challenged right to burn the flag has been judged to be protected by the first amendment. So by their own standards, yes.
....have they tried just wrapping the statues in layers of flags then burning those?
1
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by StriderHort)
"I'm sorry Mr Rape, but we weren't able to get you off the hook, the girl was black so that's ok and everyone realised you acted in self defence, but when her head was slamming your hand off the pavement you chipped a statue of Mr Slaver, you'll do 10 years for this..."
Lol wtf are you on about?

Are you alright?
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Drewski)
In the US it is.
This is the country where money = speech and where the oft-challenged right to burn the flag has been judged to be protected by the first amendment. So by their own standards, yes.
Wait... what?

You have every right to go around burning your own US flag, however, you can't just waltz up to someone else's flag and burn without any consequence.
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Occitanie)
Lol wtf are you on about?

Are you alright?
I thought it was a reasonably clear satire concerning the absurdity of caring more about things and punishments than people and safety. Was there a part of it you specifically did not understand?
0
reply
Occitanie
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by StriderHort)
I thought it was a reasonably clear satire concerning the absurdity of caring more about things and punishments than people and safety. Was there a part of it you specifically did not understand?
Right, I see now.

What about damaging property to
Last edited by Occitanie; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Drewski)
In the US it is.
This is the country where money = speech and where the oft-challenged right to burn the flag has been judged to be protected by the first amendment. So by their own standards, yes.
Nobody's stopping them from destroying their own property, but I very much doubt the people tearing down statues own those statues.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Nobody's stopping them from destroying their own property, but I very much doubt the people tearing down statues own those statues.
Well, in the vast majority of cases, the statues are public, so yes they do.

(Original post by StriderHort)
....have they tried just wrapping the statues in layers of flags then burning those?
Flagception
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Occitanie)
Right, I see now.

What about damaging property to
What about it? That was already against various laws. Getting a punishment for vandalising a statue or other state owned thing? sure. But when 10 YEARS starts getting thrown around it feels more like personal than justice (admittedly I believe the law already exists, Trump isn't inventing it). This is before you even look at it from the eye watering cost of incarceration VS cost of statue.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by barnetlad)
Mr Johnson had cut police numbers in London whilst Mayor and so this hinders the police. He also created the Cummings defence for breaking rules about what you are permitted to do in the pandemic.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t sit with me. On the same day that Colston was torn down, Bristol police still managed to pop in and find time to fine some home lockdown breakers. This after taking the knee to thousands of protesters. They’re a joke.
0
reply
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
When lumps of metal and stone became more important than people.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by DiddyDec)
When lumps of metal and stone became more important than people.
Ah, don't worry about it, it's nothing new. the only novel bit here is hearing the CiC voice it in such unequivocal terms.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling ahead of results day?

Very Confident (39)
8.07%
Confident (65)
13.46%
Indifferent (68)
14.08%
Unsure (120)
24.84%
Worried (191)
39.54%

Watched Threads

View All