WTAF - Far right protests

[Poppi89]

I have just heard on the radio that far-right protesters will be out tomorrow in response to the BLM protesters. People are being urged not to be out in support of BLM tomorrow due to the aggressive nature of the far-right group and BLM protests are being cancelled because of them.

I am outraged by this. The BLM protesters are asking for people to not be killed due to the colour of their skin. They have rightly or wrongly made a decision to put themselves at risk of COVID-19 to help spread this message - a lot of people have called them idiots etc for doing this.

The far-right protests are now also protesting in large groups (but not in response to a murder) and are 'known' for being aggressive. How is this acceptable?

I would like to hear from anyone who is planning to join/agree with these far-right protests and their reasons why?

Yes, all far right here is we disagreed. Disgusting!

@CockCarousel

There's a lot of support on MN for the far right isn't there? BLM are angry because of years of oppression. Far right - what exactly do they have to be angry about? A couple of statues?

No. There’s a lot of support for free speech.

You can’t just allow protests you agree with or think are worth it; all sides must have the same right to protest.

However, right now, BLM or Far Right, nobody should be protesting. It is dangerous and selfish.

Everything now depends on the optics

Which shows how little people are prepared to apply a little thought imo, and prefer to condemn out of hand a march attended wholly peacefully by thousands because a few dozen troublemakers or hotheads chose to behave appallingly.

@Notejode, I was speaking from a UK perspective, I should have made that clear.

Onlyfoolsnmothers I apologise. My use of the word our (meaning everyone) was only obvious in my head and may have came across as only including certain sections of the community. That wasn’t my intention.

I think we are all on high alert
I hope all those who turn up today in London keep it peaceful and that no one gets hurt.

I’m glad I don’t live in London, it will be the first place to loose control from protests, riots and looting.

Given that the protestors will directly cause deaths of doctors and nurses of all ethnicities, leaving grieving children behind, I would call them selfish. And, of course, most are young and fit, so are taking little or no personal risk

Most of those doctors and nurses are young and fit too, so you’ve just shot down your own argument.

I agree with you @LakieLady but you only have to read a few political threads here to realise how little thought the vast majority of people apply to anything. And it’s obvious that the media will focus on headline grabbing extremists, a lot of people never get any further than those headlines.

Well good luck anyone who live’s near the area.

You can’t just allow protests you agree with or think are worth it; all sides must have the same right to protest.

This is just one of many posts on this thread implying that a call has been made to prevent all right wing protest. This is not the case.

Yaxley-Lennon explicitly called his acolytes to action, urging them to protest on the same route and on the same day as the BLM protest. The far right are permitted to protest as much as anyone else, but there is a definite attempt on this thread to twist the rhetoric to imply that people who think groups like EDL, DFLA, should not be allowed in proximity to the BLM protestors are saying they should not ever be allowed to protest in any circumstances.

I see through your flimsy attempts to deflect from the reality.

If protests are allowed, they’re allowed. By all groups, not just the ones you are comfortable with.

In my opinion though, no one should be protesting at the moment

This is just one of many posts on this thread implying that a call has been made to prevent all right wing protest. This is not the case.

BaileysforBreakfast No, I didn’t imply that at all. I was responding to another poster and my opinion is applicable at all times; not just now. Everyone should have the right to protest whether you agree with them or not, however, not right now. Not during a global pandemic.

I see through your flimsy attempts to deflect from the reality.

And I see through your flimsy attempt to make stuff up and put words in people’s mouths to fit your own narrative.

I’m embarrassed for you that your case is so weak you have to defer to tactics like this.

If protests are allowed, they’re allowed. By all groups, not just the ones you are comfortable with.
And up pops another one.
Protests are allowed in this country - by all groups. The fact that people like Yaxley-Lennon are still allowed on our streets should tell you that. If only you'd look beyond the hysterical headlines.

I’m embarrassed for you that your case is so weak you have to defer to tactics like this.

And I'm embarrassed for you, too.

(p.s. Look up the definition of 'defer'...)

Military veterans, and serving members, vowed to go to London to protect the Cenotaph and Churchill's statue before Tommy Robinson and his ilk jumped on the bandwagon. They're not "far right". A lot of them have seen their friends and colleagues, both black and white, die in action and are upset and angry about the vandalism last weekend.

@BaileysforBreakfast so what’s your point? I didn’t say they weren’t allowed (pandemic aside). I said they should be alllwed. The OP seems aghast that they someone other than BLM is marching.

Let’s hope the rain will put off those that are just going to attend to get out of lockdown boredom. I think lockdown has obviously encouraged more people to attend these protests, who pre lockdown probably wouldn’t have bothered. As far as the calls today by a senior BLM organiser to remove Churchill’s statue, why not have a public referendum to find out the majority view on whether statues should be removed to museums? That’s democracy and not allowing demands of sections of society to dictate. Having a statue on public display isn’t some sort of alter of worship. If the appropriate plaques alongside the monument details what that person has done in their lifetime, controversial or not, then that’s just history, advising what that person did and people will form their own opinions. Having the statues there benefits everyone because it’s historical facts; good and bad, so that future generations will learn from the past.

BLM organiser- we want to tear Churchill down
'far right' (many of whom aren't actually far right)- we want to protect them
Khan- best board them up to protect them from the far right

Probably best to board them up to save them from those who want to tear it down tbh

Maybe read the OP again? They are 'aghast' that far right groups have scheduled their 'protests' to clash with BLM. They are not 'aghast' at the notion of them protesting ever.

The police have given each group a specific route to follow. If no-one deviates from this, there should be no clashes between the opposing groups, but Y-L's spittle-spraying enraged speech (if anyone saw it before it was removed from YouTube) was most certainly a call for confrontation - not a suggestion for holding a quiet counter-demonstration.

Can you imagine how awful it must be for veterans, 75 years after D day to see the statue of Churchill boxed up for its own safety and the police unwilling or unable to properly defend it?
People are waking up to the fact that opposition to left wing anarchists and thugs does not equal far right supporters.

why not have a public referendum to find out the majority view on whether statues should be removed to museums?
Because referendums always go so well and aren't divisive at all

Having a statue on public display isn’t some sort of alter of worship. If the appropriate plaques alongside the monument details what that person has done in their lifetime, controversial or not, then that’s just history
History is usually written by privileged white males. However, I agree that most statues should remain in place. I would have liked to see the Colson statue on a plinth alongside a statue depicting the reality of slavery and a VERY prominent plaque in between them contextualising the history and acknowledging how disgusting the slave trade was.

That’s a very interesting idea @Baileysforbreakfast. It would definitely be more educational than tucking these statues away in museums where people have to actively seek out the lessons they should be teaching.

But the ‘far’ right obviously needed their protest to be alongside the BLM one because they are there to protect the monuments, so what would be the point of going afterwards or before? I’m sure that, just like the BLM protestors, there are going to trouble makers alongside them, but if these people are in the teeny minority, as people keep saying, then the majority peaceful protestors on both sides should immediately alert the police rather than watch on.

Can you imagine how awful it must be for veterans, 75 years after D day to see the statue of Churchill boxed up for its own safety and the police unwilling or unable to properly defend it? People are waking up to the fact that opposition to left wing anarchists and thugs does not equal far right supporters.

This is all so black and white in some people's heads. It is not just 'left wing anarchists and thugs' who are reflecting on the appropriateness of some statues.

My father was a veteran of WW2. He was 17 when he enlisted in 1944. Later, he became very interested in colonial history and was appalled at some of the things he learned about people he'd thought of as heroes. Fortunately, he was capable of critical thinking and never fetishised Churchill to the extent that many do. I don't think he'd have given a shiny shit about a statue being put in a box temporarily.

baileysforbreakfast and of course the current situation of people dictating on what they want to happen, or else they will be defaced or torn down - that’s not decisive at all? And I clearly stated that plaques detailing everything should be placed alongside the statues.