To think we should ban the term ‘globalise the intifada’

[Dangeos]

After the terrorist attacks in Manchester and now Bondi, I struggle to see how this term is anything other than a call to violence against Jews. We should be cracking down on it, in the same way we do other hate and violence inciting speech.

Did the pro Palestine demonstrations play any part in the UK Guv recognising the State of Palestine ? I don't know if they did or not, but voicing of public opinion might have.

UK formally recognises Palestinian State - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

It's not a case of THEM complaining about authoritarianism, it should really be a case of everyone not wanting it.

I don't even think this a case for the "slippery slope". or "thin edge of the wedge" arguments. Selectively banning of protests/demonstrations has no place in a free society. Because who decides what is allowed and what is banned ?

If people break the law, then arrest them.

Sorry but when terrorist attacks are carried out, I think they more than justify a ban. Lives saved are worth far more than freedom of assembly. It's all academic anyway because nothing will prevent further attacks happening.

Quote : "Lives saved are worth far more than freedom of assembly. "

Fair enough. If you have evidence that restricting freedom of assembly saves lives, go for it.

Just remember that it is authoritarian states that ban freedom of assembly.

Like I ask each time (before someone reports me ) just show me where I have been disrespectful ?

Where there is a clear and present danger to a section of the community, authoritarianism might be absolutely essential, albeit selective. The only slippery slope I see is that the danger has been left unchecked for over two years.

@Dideon I've no doubt that some of people attending the marches are not rabid antisemites, maybe, even most aren't, but it's irrelevant, isn't it? Enough of them will be and it's not even about the people attending the marches.

It's about the people that are watching and listening to the calls of "Globalise the Intifada!" and seeing the millions attending these marches and becoming emboldened by it. Feeling like their hate is justified and condoned by so many people and what they may do with that feeling. If someone is already that way inclined-surely, seeing all those people, week in, week out, yelling out that chant amongst others is only going to increase their feelings towards violence?

It's all those little ripple effects that these marches create. One, they're not going to do shit anyway. As if Israel cares that a bunch of people with nothing better to do on a weekend are running around their town centres, holding up Palestine flags and chanting slogans most of them don't understand. Very persuasive because we know leaders of countries really want to know what insights Jacqui from Islington has.

I've no issue with people being critical of Israel, but at some point, we have to ask what role these marches may have played and be continuing to play in increasing the risk to Jewish people among other groups?

In Sydney, they've just thwarted yet another attack that was aimed at Bondi Beach again-all from middle eastern men and it doesn't take a genius to work out that they're from the religion of peace.

If genocide is the issue being protested against-why are there no protests held for the Nigerian Christians being slaughtered by Boko Haram?

I've said on another thread, it's high time for emergency legislation to be brought in or repealed to ban the marches. Jewish lives are worth far more than freedom of assembly. Had The hate marches been peaceful, I wouldn't have entertained the notion. Of course banning them won't stop future terrorist attacks but they can be damn well stopped being given a platform.

There's a crazy alliance between Islam and the identarian left. Gaza is the fashionable cause. They couldn't care less about Christians being persecuted in Nigeria or anywhere else.

Who does the selecting ? That's the problem is it not ?

As an example of "Lives saved are worth far more than freedom of assembly", we could use Xinjiang. That has been in the news a fair bit over the years.

I am using that as an example, not a whataboutism.

The Israeli government obviously don’t care what ‘Mary from Barnsley who gave up her Saturday to come on a coach to London to be part of a demonstration because she felt helpless after years of genocide being brought to her every night when she’s watching her news programme’ . However Mary from Barnsley might. Mary from Barnsley could quite possibly be Jewish .

Must remind myself to ignore the obvious baiters. It's festive season and although the Jewish might not necessarily celebrate Christmas, it's the first Christmas for the released hostages in 3 years. Peace be with them 🙏

The ones that have pulled out of the awful Eurovision son contest because Israel participates have not said they will pull out of the World Cup, Olympics or Winter Olympics. Don’t Israel compete in all of these? Shows how hypocritical they are.

Slogans like 'Globalise the Intafada' and 'From the River to the Sea' are harming community cohesion and the Jewish community.

Trouble is, if the police start arresting people for it or start banning the protests, I think some of the protestors are so unreasonable that they will do it more. They don't even have to worry about getting a criminal record as if you go for a job in the public sector, you could probably boast about the things you did to stop the 'genocide' at the interview! Crazy world!

Some good points there!

You are here calling for the end of freedom of assembly. Selective of course. But you are not forthcoming on who you think should do the selecting.

As an example, and sorry to invoke the slippery slope fallacy, have you been following the horrific tower block fire in Hong Kong. The BJ government announced that any demonstrations against any local officials, suspected corruption, lax safety etc, will be considered anti Government demonstrations, and any demonstrators will be dealt with.

That is what happens when freedom of assembly is banned, even for specifics.

And it snowballs, because it has to in order for it to be enforced. The first casualty is always freedom of the press.

Can you see how that works ? Genuine question.

I am not baiting you. I just happen to strongly believe in freedom of assembly, freedom to protest, freedom of the press etc.

The UN special rapporteur appears to think otherwise:

UN Gaza report

But surely you don’t think masses of masked people can march through a city every week calling for ‘death to the Germans’ or ‘death to the Christian’s’ or ‘death to the black people’ or any other hateful nonsense? There’s freedom of speech and freedom of assembly but you can’t just shout for racist violence? Or do you think they should actually allow this too?

Sorry if you thought I was referring to you, absolutely absolutely not! You're here to debate, not bait!

They can't stand Christians. The Left mocks them relentlessly.

Especially on here!!

I couldn't see an author name on this but given that Francesca Albanese is a UN Special Rapporteur and also a deranged antisemite, I can't view this as an objective source.

I feel ambivalent on the marches but France did ban them and still has more freedom of protest and assembly than HK.

We have laws against hate speech. We have seen these laws being acted on over the last few days. The handful of people calling for global intifada or whatever are being arrested. The courts will deal with them,

Let's just deal with how hate speech is defined, rather than start banning freedom of assembly. How we do define what hate speech is, is rather fluid, as it should be.

I am not on this thread advocating for any side or ideology. My interest is freedom and rights. And when I see people write that they want to remove freedoms and rights, I sometimes want to respond.

And that's up to France.

I would dispute they have more right to protest than in the UK. They can't do pro Palestine marches now, for instance.

Well yes of course but you mentioned HK so I’m giving another example where they have been banned with lower impact on freedom of assembly.

What do you mean by your last line? Where are you referring to, France? Why do you say that