Should anti-Muslim Crusades imagery at marches be treated as incitement?

[noblegiraffe]

Tommy Robinson's march had a strong anti-Muslim sentiment. He was filmed saying that he would end Islam if he was in charge of the country and that Muslims should leave. Meanwhile, Kellie-Jay Keen said "It is not too late to get Islam out of every single official office in this country... we have to remove Islam from every single place of authority."

In this context, the imagery of the Knights Templar which was evident on flags and banners was an obvious reference to the Crusades and battles against Muslims. One attendee dressed up as Richard the Lionheart.

In a society which is saw a 19% increase in hate crimes against Muslims last year, should this sort of symbolism be seen as threats and incitement and banned in a similar way to 'globalise the intifada'? (As to the comments of the speakers, I'm not sure what's happening there but I hope the police take action).

Honestly, I saw a video of women in burkas encouraging the crowd to boo

Then the crowd cheers when they remove them

Not sure if that was from the march though as the women weren't British sounding

Insane.

What we definitely need is another law to outlaw perceived offence.

Perceived or intended? Why do you think the bloke dressed up as Richard the Lionheart?

I’m more concerned about antisemitism

Kellie-Jay Keen's speech was terrible, full of hatred. My area is not very diverse, but my son had a lovely, hijab wearing muslim teacher last year. Hands down she was the best teacher he has had so far, I dread to think how she must be feeling seeing shit like that. She is a British citizen and a teacher, she shouldn't have to hide her faith in order to teach.

It definately is inciting hatred, it's anything but peaceful.

That was on show at the utk rally as well.

It's easy to condemn both.

Incitement for what specifically? It’s not that I disagree with you I’m just racking my brains at what offence they are encouraging? It’s unpleasant yes, but criticism of religion, even very strong criticism, is legal and something everyone is entitled to do.

This islamophobia legislation needs to come in thick and fast because this type of hatred is becoming increasingly common up and down the country. It needs stamping out alongside anti-immigration and pro-national rhetoric.

I think outlawing anti-Muslim sentiments could be used as an effective blasphemy law, and weaponised by all faiths, stifling debate and criticism of specific religious beliefs and practices.

The anti-immigrant/anti-Muslim rhetoric is appalling, but I think should be tackled under existing public order laws - if it can be shown to be causing considerable fear/distress, surely action can be taken?

You can’t stamp those things out - criticising religion and government policy are fundamental points of freedom of speech. Imagine a world where you can’t criticise Evangelical Christians, or the government going all out on fracking?

That's really what I'm pondering.

If 'globalise the intifada' can be banned as clearly encouraging violence against Jews, then images of knights going into battle against Muslims is....certainly in the same vein, particularly when paired with the rhetoric of the speakers.

Explain how it isn’t intended rather than perceived offense?

Has it been banned? How?

😂

Fellow posters, ignore, this person is… shall we say a ‘provocateur’. Sadly encountered a couple of times now and thrives on attention.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cde65de81jgo

Two police forces have said they'll make arrests. I don't know how individual police forces have the ability to do this but there you are.

They arrested them for public order offences. If every person who said it was arrested we would have far more arrests by now. It probably contributed to a picture of their behaviour that day but I’m not aware it’s specifically illegal. Anyway it calls for armed uprising - it isn’t criticising religion.

This endless policing of speech in the UK is getting us nowhere and creating resentment. It's too difficult to monitor and so inevitably leads to accusations of unfairness and a "two tier" approach, which just fuels the cycle.
On a related note, I do wish people were a bit more informed about some of the historical imagery they invoke. The Fourth Crusade was an absolute disaster for Christianity that led to the permanent weakening of Byzantium, and it was primarily Latin attacking Greek. Ironically, this eventually led to the fall of Christendom in the East to Islam.

I don't think crusade imagery is criticising religion but more suggestive of armed uprising?

But she has to hide her hair in order to leave the house?

So do nuns, they teach as well.

I think most British people feel deeply uncomfortable with strict faith of any kind. That's why they keep a distance from the tension between Muslims and Jews. We find it embarrassing and archaic.

Unless the Crusades are an actual movement right now, or an armed resistance, I don’t think it’s quite there yet.

Agree. This reaction of ‘we don’t like it? Ok let’s just make it illegal then’ is wildly counterproductive and from a rights perspective, very concerning.