> we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong
We don't, though. Violence is legal if it's being carried out by state-sanctioned actors such as the police or army in the course of their duties.
For a state this seems somewhat inevitable, however pretty much all state entities have a duty to use as little violence as possible to get the job done. See European human rights act, Geneva convention etc.
At the end of the day - Violet Gibson wasn’t an employee or representative of any government. She was just someone with mental health issues and a revolver.
Again we come back to Thomas Mair, if your principle is that political violence is fine (again - that’s facism), then the only thing you should find objectionable about him is his politics. He was, after all, following your rules.
Personally I try to follow the “do unto others...” golden rule.
“Kill all others” seems to be the guiding principle of too many people.
> if your principle is that political violence is fine
No, that's not my principle and I've corrected you multiple times.
And that really is the problem - in the one hand we have laws (set by governments) in a civil society that says violence is wrong, political violence doubly so, but at the same time they are putting up a plaque celebrating political violence.
It’s like “violence is bad... (wink)”
So if you were going to put up a plaque to Tony Blair celebrating his involvement in the Good Friday Agreement, I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I loathe the man personally and dislike much of his politics- but you are highlighting a positive thing he did.
Celebrating someone who is literally only thought of today because they failed to murder someone on the street sends a crazy message: “Murder is wrong... (wink)”