Okay I accept that's your position. Now I'm going to do something that you won't like but is very accurate and shows your hypocrisy. Understand I get what you mean though, ultimately.
( This is just an example) You- "I don't want to use the government to suppress Gays right to free expression. I think it is best to allow them to speak freely so that their true opinions are exposed. However, the gays should be corrected, exposed and mocked. At times Gays should be opposed by speaking out, boycotts and protesting. At other times it is best to ignore and marginalize them as the small number of extremist Gays that they are."
Now do you see what I mean? Flip a few words around and you sound like you're very much oppressing the very type of minority movements you claim to want to protect. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make their movements somehow worthy of discrimination just as Gays shouldn't be discriminated against just because they're gay, nor should a Nazi, Black Nationalist or Communist.
maybe this will get through. Do you ascribe the modern Democrat party of the US to be the same as the Democrat party that was involved with the KKK?
Can you and Hatuey understand that movements may evolve and change? Sometimes the change takes months, sometimes years..
As I posted (post 2) in response to the OP, a Mod (German Guy) has posted a full critique and discussion on the movement. He is not a nazi, does not feel immigrants a re a problem and has examined PEGIDA as it was. Obviously in 6 months or 100 years as in the Democrats, things may have changed
I don't care if PEGIDA is "racist" or not. As long as its members are against Muslim jihadists, it's fine with me. I hope at least some European nations will come to their senses and deport every Muslim troublemaker they find. Intern them, even, if necessary. Either way, they would be getting off far easier than they might have.
Muslims around the world are lucky there are no nations that are both extremely powerful and have rulers as savage as the jihadists themselves. What if the U.S., for example, instead of being a civilized nation, had a government like Germany's during the Third Reich? An attack like 9/11, which was in part an attempt to destroy the U.S. government, would have been answered with a final solution to the Islamist problem. That probably would have consisted of using nuclear weapons to incinerate most of the world's billion-and-a-half Muslims, innocent and guilty alike, and sending all the survivors that could be caught to extermination camps.
Looks like one of those things that didn't start off as racist and only against Islamic fundamentalism taking root in their communities, and then things went left.....or should I say right?
I voted "yes."
"I am not among those who fear the people. They and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816 "[F]acts are before ideas." -- Mikhail Bakunin, 1882
The problem is that people actually think that Sharia law is being practised in its fullest which is ridiculous in any modern western society.. hell even in most modern Islamic countries. But that does not mean that aspects of Sharia law are not just common sense or full acceptable in even a Christian or Jewish country.. because guess what, both faiths have similar restrictions. Hell I would claim that Jewish law on things like divorce are far far worse than anything in Islamic law.