That all changed however when EHSC chose to involve the police to harass a third party in the conflict. The police are a blunt tool, their arsenal consists of violence and the threat of violence. According to both accounts; they were lying in wait, acquired the vidographer as a soft but valid target, and used overwhelming and unnecessary levels of force to arrest him. Ron in the post above brings up an even most disturbing point that the EHSC, to gain the use of this tool, had to promise to follow up on the legal abuse of what ever target they chose.

My questions are simple. Why was the videographer arrested? Does this indicate that the board of EHSC, having shown willingness to use violence to control the dialogue, targeted him to stop descent? How does the EHSC square these actions with with the free dissemination of information in a society, an action we consider a bedrock of our freedoms? How does the EHSC justify relinquishing its rights to the police for their assistance, i.e.: “an ex-ante informal agreement was made with the police that if we asked for their help we would not subsequently drop charges”? In other words, does the EHSC, as its actions show, condone and consider the use of violence a valid method of societal interaction; and if so, how do you ethically differentiate your actions from any other group using violence as a tool of social manipulation?

p.s. Hemant, I thoroughly enjoyed the talk you presented at our society a while back. You probably don’t remember but I asked you to sign one of your books for my dads birthday. We both liked it alot. Thank you

In places where it receives traction, it acts exactly like any other religion, turning established order on its head, suppressing other religions and atheists(of communism, that is) and getting into everybody’s business.

Having seen every communistic experiment fail worldwide for nearly a century now, I’m frankly surprised there are any people left who still claim to be such. Apparently lessons of history are lost upon them.

The discussion should be about value systems, behavior, and psychology – not people yelling at and provoking each other into doing the “right thing” when the other person perceives the “right thing” differently.

Just my thoughts, silly though they may be

Instead of doing what so many others have done when forces seek to repress critical thought and dissenting ideas which is to silently accept this repression and walk away. She, along with others, decided that this decision needed to be challenged.

So, basically, she was going to force them to host her like it or not. And who’s unethical?

I’ve got to say that I was open to listening to both sides here even though under the impression Ms. Taylor way over-reacted.

I come from poverty. I’ve struggled as a single mother and am watching my daughter do the same. I carry her and my grandson now. Naturally, I have my own socialist leanings.

However, communism is extremist and nothing I’ve seen from Ms. Taylor’s fans here leads me to any other conclusion. She was extreme and repressive (no matter what she and her fan club are claiming) toward the EHS in this mess (and I’d heard of neither her or them before here).

They may or may not have been rude at worse (even that issue is debatable and I don’t know enough to know); she was tyrannical in her actions. She threw a temper tantrum that amounted in you will host me or else. I seriously wonder if she had irresponsible parents who fed her candy to shut her up when she threw one.

I was going to call BC on his ageism but seems to be a common thread coming from the commenters supporting Ms. Taylor. So many comments about the EHS seem to be paraphrases of old farts. Unreal. With the way, you’re acting (like spoiled brats, in case I didn’t already make that clear), you’re in the least position to point fingers or throw stones.

As someone over 50, let me remind you that it is only due to us old farts, er, babyboomers, that you have the freedom to throw your temper tantrums. You owe it to the changes occurred in the ’60′s. And we owe the ability to have affected the changes we did then to those who came before us from the founding fathers to the likes of Frederick Douglass and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and so many others.

And before you take this attitude:

you poor, old pensioned-off-excuses-for-free-thinkers … scared by those young uns and their loud noises

remember it’s those old farts you owe this much freedom.

(Disclaimer: I’m at the tail end of the babyboomer spectrum. Meaning I was a kid in the ’60′s who had the good fortune to come of age in the ’70′s after the Viet Nam War ended and reap the benefits of the actions of the babyboomers at the opposite end of the spectrum from me. Thank you to them, I have always appreciated what you did for me.)

But, from what I see in this thread, the narrow-mindedness, the unacceptance of those of opposing ideas, the tendency to oppress comes from Ms. Taylor’s ardent supporters, not the EHS.

If I’m getting a wrong impression (and perhaps I’ll waste some time this weekend surfing around the internet reading up on both sides), Ms. Taylor also ought to consider the impression she makes if she wants to get her message across clearly. However, if she doesn’t care about communicating, go ahead, kick those heels and scream. But don’t be surprised if no one gives you a lollipop for it.