"The only purpose of these endless marches is to intimidate British Jews" (part two) ***MNHQ has tweaked the title in order to make the quote more clear***

[stomachameleon]

Only the few apparently........these pictures are from todays March. Footage to follow..

I don't hate anybody.
I know there are reasons you might be prepared take a life..if your family were threatened for instance.
I know that there are people who might manipulate me into feeling that I'm in that situation but I am thankfully not.
If I had to take a life I hope I would do it quickly with no cruelty and it would be on my conscience forever.
I have never been taught to hate, I have known fear and that is also an easy emotion to manipulate.
Many people in the middle east are living in fear and a bunch of halfwits in London stirring up trouble in the UK helps nobody.

@EllaDisenchanted I can only imagine what your life is like, my folks grew up on the outskirts of London during ww2 so I could see how the bombs affected them, though we didn't have enemy incursions on home soil as Israel have and many European countries did.

I will not glorify conflict, I will not look at a war cemetery or the story of a suicide bomber or at a war zone without thinking like a mother who loves their children.
I will not march to support such a cause and I despise anyone who does.

So, to quote you, at the start of the thread, you don't hate anyone. At at the end of the thread you despise people. Can you not see where all this hate is leading? It serves nobody and the world is a worse place for it.

Is English your first language?

Do I have contempt for their mental processes? Yes
Do I hate them as human beings?
No

Correct.

and this "small number" thing...if that happened once or twice, they'd have an argument.

But when it's persistent with nobody in the so-called silent majority of the marching body taking immediate action against these alleged small numbers or the organisers not taking immediate action....I'm afraid it suggests both a pattern of behaviour as well as the implication that is their view.

After all, we're told that silence is not only complicity, but that silence is violence....right?

It is a civic, legal and moral duty for any one of the marchers to pull down pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas material AND actively attempting to push such individuals out of their march.

I have yet to observe this in action. 🤔

Are you suggesting it's not valid to hate certain groups of people for specific behaviours? 🤔

Interesting point...

I think its origin is the inverted red triangle used by the Nazis for political prisoners in the concentration camps. People such as communists, social democrats, monarchists, polish resistance, French resistance, etc.

Wearing one is protest against a government that outlaws peaceful opposition.

They aren’t pro Hamas/terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge

Peaceful opposition?

I've seen a different explanation, that it represents a target designated by hamas and is an implied threat.
Ambiguity is a good shield to hide behind I suppose, unlike for instance taping a picture of a paraglider to your back and claiming you really like paragliding.

Yeah, it's a meme that came out of Hamas attack videos. You can tell that it is used as a pro-Hamas symbol by the bilge that comes out of the accounts that have it on their handle.

It is a civic, legal and moral duty for any one of the marchers to pull down pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas material AND actively attempting to push such individuals out of their march.

@DownNative You have yet to observe it in action because it’s illegal.

It would be common assault and against English common law for common citizens to destroy someone’s personal property and physically push them out of a march. You can’t legally be a vigilante policing other protesters. Their only civil, legal and moral duty is to point the ones who have hate speech placards, symbols or shouts/songs out to the police. It is the duty of the police to police all marches/protests.

No, it's not illegal to do so when it involves material in breach of the 2006 Terrorism Act. It is reasonable behaviour for groups to take their own action against behaviour that can bring them into disrepute.

Whether it's the marching body or organisers, they do not require permission from the peelers in order to express their own distaste and dissatisfaction with pro-terrorist material.

After that, they and/or organisers can report to the police officers in attendance.

Furthermore, civilians absolutely "can make an arrest if the suspect is actually committing the offence or if you reasonably suspect them of committing it, or when the offence has been committed and you reasonably suspect them of having committed it."

Let's not pretend otherwise.

So, if it is merely a minority doing it, then the majority of the marching body should have no qualms about taking immediate action. 🤷‍♂️

Yes it is a bit ambiguous in my opinion.

The Hamas videos are not the first ever use of red iconography to indicate hostile target. It’s more like walking around with a bullseye on your shirt 🎯 as you are adopting the icon of a target, not threatening to target others.

I agree having a picture of a paraglider on you is antisemitic and celebrates terrorism.

The Hamas videos are not the first ever use of red iconography to indicate hostile target.

However, in the context of where they are being worn and by whom (e.g. a man carrying Iranian/Yemini/Lebanon flags) I think it is safe to assume that they are pro Hamas.

They don’t need permission to express distaste, but they can’t rip signs off them and physically manhandle them out of a march.

As for the “citizens arrest” you must be joking. It’s only advised if the person is committing a serious crime as in one that will cause bodily injury to another person like stopping a stabbing, or stopping a child kidnapping. It’s not for use when you get offended by a placard or a chant.

It’s not that the majority have no qualms. Arrests are made at every march because the majority point out to the police the minority that are offending hate speech laws and the police arrest them.

I don’t think it is safe to make any assumptions.

I think that would be stupid to reserve judgement on something so blatantly obvious.

Or chanting about global intifadas, supporting houthi terrorists, driving a long way from home to find a majority Jewish neighbourhood in UK to wave your Palestinian flag like a nf supporter waves the st George flag
These are not peaceful demonstrators.
Many of them are UK born, where have they got these influences from? They don't have to live with the consequences..rather like the so-called leaders of hamas
I won't waste my energy hating but they deserve my contempt.

I'm not necessarily suggesting the group of marchers do attempt a citizens arrest, but it is not true the citizenry cannot do anything.

The main body of marchers absolutely can take action even if that is to stop, surround and very publicly argue with such people.

Peelers can then intervene.

Now, have you actually seen this being done? 🤔

No one has said citizens can’t do anything.

I agreed they can take action and specified what that was- take note and inform the police.

What I disagreed with is you saying:
It is a civic, legal and moral duty for any one of the marchers to pull down pro-terrorist, pro-Hamas material AND actively attempting to push such individuals out of their march.

because those specific actions that you recommended are common assault and illegal. As would be your argument that it is legal if they are doing a ‘citizens arrest’ - but in this situation it would be an illegal misuse of citizens arrest powers.

Yes, I have read of the police intervening and making arrests at the protests. Doesn’t matter what I have or have not seen, I am not omniscient.

Have seen footage on these threads of anti-hamas individuals being assaulted by others on these demos, anyone know of prosecutions arising from that?
Have also seen footage of Gazans complaining about hamas then being silenced by interviewers and those around them. They have reason to fear the consequences of speaking out, those in the UK should not.

One woman’s stupidity is another woman’s prudence.

Back to the guy who gave a speech about normalising massacres, I was a bit confused because what he said didn't really make sense in the context of the rest of the speech. Previously he said that the massacre must be halted (see screenshot). So he used massacre to refer to the situation in Gaza.

Then later he said (and he clearly said this) "we must normalise massacres as a status quo"

The subtitle on the video below puts this as "we must NOT normalise massacres as a status quo'"

Not normalise massacres would make far more sense with what he was saying than normalise massacres, particularly when he was using the word massacre for the situation in Gaza.

Did he misspeak? Has there been any clarification?

Or being so open minded that your brain falls out.

Do you have a link to the video? The BSL signer to the left of the speaker is making the sign for “not” in the screen grab so she heard that word at some point during the subtitle that reads “but we must not normalise massacres as a status quo”