Why are people allowed to in cite racial hatred when little old ladies are being arrested for supporting an end to war and killing innocent chidren?

[BlueSkySunshineDay]

A keynote white, male speaker at T Robinson’s rally saying we must “end Islam” yesterday. What the actual FUCK? Why wasn’t he arrested?

Are you generally so naive?

Context matters. There is a difference between debating whether Islam (or any other religion) as an ideology should form part of our society and someone at a rally of known far right activists saying “end Islam” That is a clear dog whistle. You thunk attendees of a T Robinson rally hear “end Islam” and are considering whether as an ideology we should be working with society to reduce its impact, or are they thinking “let’s beat up brown people”?

People will use all sorts of plausible deniability to pretend they aren’t racist.

Why are the old ladies not protesting at Russia stealing children from Ukraine? The children when old enough are put into the Russian military with every chance they'll be killing their own people and be killed themselves. How sick is that.
I wonder why the concern for children in the Middle East, but not Europe?

Its a religion specifically. I wouldn't describe Christianity as an ideology either- technically it is, but you could also argue it's so broad now that the definition of ideology:

"A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system"

No longer fits that well. Besides ideology is a loaded term with negative connotations nowadays. If someone said "Christian Ideology" I would think they had an ulterior motive.

So it's a religious belief. It's important to be allowed to critique religious beliefs. I think there is a difference between criticising/questioning and saying you want to "end" the religion.

For all that Christians in the UK are fairly placid I think there would be concern if someone said they wanted to "end Christianity" or "end Catholicism",or "end Judaism" there would/should be a strong push back. It's quite an unhinged/unpleasant statement to make.

No, but people saying "smash capitalism" at a large event would trigger a whole load of hand wringing about the youth being brain washed into communism etc. And a lot of other people eager to point out why "smashing capitalism" is not a great idea. Especially if the meaning wasn't smashing the capitalist system but.somehow ending capitalism as a belief system. That's way more totalitarian.

I don't think controversial speech should be criminalised unless it crosses a line but people criticising that speech is not persecution.
Also, actually, I do think there is something both deeper and more personal about religious belief than political ideologies. I don't think you can genuinely believe in free speech and argue for ending specific belief systems. Though of course free speech gives you the ability to argue those things.

Totally agree with you OP

I am happy for anyone to criticise the religion I was born into- Hinduism- but in real life they are likely to take this call to end Islam as a call to attack all brown people. Which is me and my family.

Let's not pretend this is about criticising a religion.

Im 5’1 and over 60 so will be a genuine little old lady in a couple of decades…
If I did something deserving of arrest, it’d be very easy for the police to do so even now.

whereas if I was a larger, younger male… especially one liable to throw things at police and their horses… whole different ball game.

I rather think that was the OPs point rather than intending to be patronising.

Smash capitalism is completely different..Nobody attacks brown or black people for being capitalist.

I expect there will be more arrests made once police have looked at footage.

I don’t understand why mumsnet lets these kind of bigoted phrases stand. “ little old ladies”? Fuck right off with that mysogynist ageism.

is there anything wrong with being any or all of
little
old
or lady?

I’m honestly not seeing how this phrase is remotely ‘bigoted’ rather than descriptive in the context in which it was used?
I’m quite looking forward to fully qualifying for the trio.

People should not be arrested for ‘unpleasant’ statements. They should also not be arrested based on speculation about what they ‘really mean’. If it truly is a dog-whistle and the crowd hears ‘end Islam’ and then goes off to burn a mosque, that is plausibly incitement. However people cannot be arrested for saying things that are mean, unpalatable, false or even bigoted.

Why are old people always described as little?!

shrinking?

@ErrolTheDragon old people don't like the word old.

Idk, a lot of old people I’ve known don’t mind it in the least.
The idea that age is in any way something to be ashamed of is a problem.

End Islam isn't a dog whistle though. If you asked me to "end racism" I would think you wanted racism to no longer exist (which might be beyond me). If someone says "end Islam" then I will assume that they no longer want Islam to exist, (presumably within the UK not worldwide.) they don't say how, so for sure maybe it doesn't mean burn down mosques. But it is an extreme statement. Push back doesn't have to mean arresting either. But I am glad you agree it is an unpleasant (to put it mildly) statement.

Smash the capitalists could be incitement in some circumstances to be fair.

I’m wondering where all of these posters are on threads about Israel. If Islam isn’t a race then neither is Judaism, we don’t want to pull that thread. Both religions are technically passed down by a parent (one down the maternal line, the other the paternal line)

I’d pull that thread. I don’t think anyone is born into a religion, I think they are indoctrinated into it as children generally or find it in later lives themselves. It’s a set of beliefs though.

I do wonder if humanity would be better without any religion or if we could all share the same beliefs, if we strove for simple things like sustainable food and water for all. I think as humanity we are capable of incredible things if we worked together but we waste so much time and energy and resources on conflicts.

There is a lot of deflection and musing on this thread. I am not an active practicer of any religion and am keen on none of them.
I doubt that matters to those motivated by this rally to attack me because I look different.

Because one is a banned group and the other is not

We'd make up different reasons to argue.with each other.
Even if you say "end Islam" is about religion not a race it still isn't really OK. We are supposed to have freedom of thought and belief in this country. It is very odd for people to proclaim themselves free speech warriors and then start talking about shutting down what goes on on other people's minds as well as what they say
Since you can't really end a religion (or ideology) without stopping someone's speech.
At the end of the 18th Century there were riots against Catholics and dissenters. Going into the 19th Century there was huge debate about what rights Catholics should have. And then at the turn of the Century rising anti-Semitism (again).
But sure, this time it's different! This time they actually have identified a religion that genuinely is "the enemy within" not like all the other false alarms.🙄

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestley_Riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Riots

I think the OP’s point has been rather lost.

I do agree that ‘policing by consent’ appears to mean that sometimes the Police choose the low-hanging fruit. Women, not men. Old, not young. Poor, not rich. Powerless, not powerful.

They had to pay 10k to one of the women they arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil FFS. But the politicians were partying. Armed police to arrest Glinner but threats of rape and death they shrug. And this example. Peaceful protest by older people vs incitement by criminals. I do agree that ‘End Islam’ as a stand-alone phrase is debatable. As an atheist I think we should be able to say any number of things about the religion, if not about the believers. But they arrest women for wrongthink so why not this bloke?

PP had it right, they didn’t want the riot that would inevitably follow. But if you CAN arrest women and older people without a riot, that really isn’t justice or egalitarian policing.

A better description would be ‘women who support a banned terrorist group’.

A better description would be, “people who support the right to protest and feel that the government deciding who is a ‘terrorist’ in order to stop protest is dodgy as fuck”.

Ever since (well forever actually) the Criminal Justice Bill the UK has been chopping away at the right to free assembly, the right to protest, the right to resist. Be careful about trusting the right or left on this one. A docile, passive populace isn’t a good thing.