http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 3797?f=rss

I support the soldiers and their families, I don't believe we should have ever have been in Afghanistan (or Iraq) for the reasons we are, but at the same time these people have a right to protest, and I'm not so sure it is 'inappropriate'. And the cheek of Gordon telling anyone what's appropriate...

And there was I thinking that conflicts like Afghanistan were to afford us the freedom to protest and, err.... oh, wait a moment.

A tricky one.

On the one hand it could be seen as distasteful to protest at any funeral, on the other they have a right to protest if you consider the political ramifications of the funerals in question.

However, I would have thought that the Police, who have 2 large planned events going ahead, would have to keep them separate no matter what those events are purely on public safety grounds.

Tricky.

I can't think of many things that some Muslims could do that would alienate the Muslim more. I can only assume that is their aim.

Meh.

Discrimination is always bad - even if it means you can't shut up some nutters.

That's the thing, if you start banning protests then you begin to destroy that which you're trying to protect.

Just kettle the motherf u c k e rs, pretend they are protesting about corporate colonialism and anti globalisation.

The way I heard it, nobody is denying their right to protest per se, however there is a requirement to consider public order. The protest is being scheduled to happen where it is for the simple reason that this would be the most provocative and controversial place. Arguably they aren't actually interested in making a peaceful protest, they're hoping to stir up confrontation.

The test would be to say 'OK, you can have you protest but instead of having it there, you can have it outside the Houses of Parliament instead' - anyone care to take a guess whether they'd take the offer up or not? I have a suspicion they wouldn't.
Turn this around - if the BNP wanted to have a march through one of the areas of say Bradford that had a local population that was largely Indian or Pakistani, would that be something people would be happy to let go or not? I don't see how this is any different; the location is chosen not to make the point it's claimed to but to be as offensive and confrontational to the local population as possible. IIRC there was a 'returning troops parade' last summer and this group turned up waving signs saying things like 'British troops murder babies'. There was nearly a riot. Why allow that kind of thing to be repeated? When the troubles in Ireland were at their height, The Orange Order were banned from parading through certain areas of Belfast. Was this an infringement of their absolute right to protest? Probably. Did it stop people probably being injured and possibly killed? Almost certainly.

We don't have the right to absolute free speech. We never have. You don't have 'right' to stand up in a packed cinema and scream 'fire'. You don't have the right to stand on Brixton high street waving a placard that says 'Blacks go home'. Why should this lot have the right to do something that's likely to have a similar effect?

Jon

+1 since it's been hyped to oblivion now, and here's more on the story:

Johnson 'will back' Wootton Bassett Islamic march ban

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wilt ... 440408.stm

The government and the MPs aren't even intelligent enough to keep their mouths shut other than to shout 'public disorder threat', ban it and take it from there

I must confess I've come to dislike Alan Johnson so much that I would almost support the march just to spite the hypocritical [LIFTED].

That's what I mentioned in my initial post concerning public order and 2 big events on the same day. In the interest of public safety, irrespective of the types of event, 2 cannot really take place in the same place at the same time.

This does appear to be a kind of Islamic martyrdom whatever way it goes.

Scenario 1 - demonstration goes ahead and is peaceful. Attention drawn to casualties on the “other side“ in Afghanistan.

Scenario 2 - demonstration banned. Islam is again shown to be the target and everyone can be accused of “Islamaphobia”.

Scenario 3 - demonstration goes ahead, but ends in violence. Again, Police, football hooligans etc. accused of targeting Islamic demonstrations.

Putting my cynic hat on for a moment, it strikes me that there is a tactic amongst some moslems to paint themselves as the victim, and they will even create a situation so that they can complain, claim discrimination etc.. We see this petty incidents such as work place dress codes, school uniforms, as well as bigger issues, such as the cartoons (extra non-related pictures offensive to Islam were added by Imams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-P ... ontroversy).

So, the issue here is how does one handle the “Islamaphobia” accusation in whatever form it arrives? I suspect that it will be largely ignored, and more public safety messages will be used.

You've reminded me of a local example. Since Amir Khan became famous, many muslim youths in the north west have taken up boxing. Now according to the ABA rules, you cannot box in an official ABA bout if you have facial hair. There are sound medical reasons for this - it can be harder to treat cuts to the face if you have a beard, plus it is harder to wash away blood and is thus considered unhygienic.

This has been in the ABA rules since, well, I suspect before all our lifetimes. But one muslim youth, on reaching the point where he was good enough to take part in an ABA bout, refused to shave off his beard and took the ABA to court claiming the rules was discriminatory against Muslims. Surprisingly enough, given men of other religions can grow beards, many muslims do not have beards, the rule was there when he started and boxing is a purely voluntary pursuit, he lost. Cue local uproar, articles in newspapers etc etc that this was discrimination and he was going to take it to the european court of human rights and what have you, to the point where Amir Khan basically publicly told the bloke to shut up as he was doing more harm than good.

Jon

An Islamist group organising a demo in Wootton Bassett has agreed to call it off - if the Prime Minister agrees to a debate on Afghanistan.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 4742?f=rss

You have to hand it to them, they know how to play the media game, and they know they have the government and the police by the balls no matter what the outcome now.



They want to highlight the killing of innocents in unjust wars, as far as they're concerned (it's actually my view too). They want to do it in a way that will get the most public attention, like most protesters. I'm struggling to actually see what's so abhorrent or offensive about it tbh

It's certainly no more arrogant and offensive than being in Afghanistan in the first place.

Or for the West doing a grab for every bit of money it can

Or assuming that our totally ruined, corrupt and disreputable "democracy" is so good that it should be forcibly exported.