Somewhat Surprising Editorial by LA Times

In the wake of the stabbing murders by Jeremy Joseph Christian in Portland, Oregon last week, the LA Times has an editorial that defends the right of pro-free speech and anti-sharia demonstrators to march in that city.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-portland-speech-20170531-story.html

It is laudable that the Times is defending the right of the two groups to march in Portland in the face of the mayor urging the federal government to shut them down. The mayor is wrong.

What I take issue with is the Times equating the words and actions of Christian in verbally abusing two Muslim women then stabbing three people who rightfully came to their defense with free speech, pro-Trump and anti-Sharia marchers.

First of all, though Christian is an obvious white nationalist, he also supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein in last year's presidential race, odd as it may seem.

Secondly, the fear in Portland is not that the marchers will riot and commit violence; the real fear is that they will be met by ANTIFA and their ilk, who will certainly commit violence.

In a time of political correctness that is strangling public discourse of serious issues, especially on college campuses, what is wrong with standing up for free speech? When did it become wrong to march in support of a sitting US president? And who is to say that "hate speech" (whoever defines it) will be voiced at these marches? Criticizing political correctness is not hate speech. Criticizing sharia law is not hate speech.

In a time of worldwide Islamic terror when ISIS and their ilk are promising to impose sharia law upon the world, what is wrong with resisting it? Let those here at home who tell us that sharia is perfectly compatible with US law (it isn't) march to make their case.

If Mayor Wheeler wants to stop the marches, he can try to do so locally citing public safety concerns. Then he can fight it out in the courts. He shouldn't try to sluff it off to the feds.