"The only purpose of these marches is to intimidate British Jews" (part three)

[stomachamelon]

Carrying on from part two....

whyever not?
Are you trying to censor Jews now?

eh?

Quite the opposite. I'm saying you can't shout down the opinion of some Jews by touting the opinion of other Jews.

The attacks on him and his arrest by the police for merely stating a terrorist organisation are terrorists prove mob rule is working. It cannot be allowed to.

This is a democracy and different opinions are ok but attacking a man stating a fact peacefully shows that some of the marchers support terrorist organisations. Is there for all to see.

It's not "shouting down".
It's a fair counter point.
One wouldn't expect Jewish folk to go on a march which was basically anti-semitic and a threat to Jewish folk would one?
And presumably they don't think London is a no go zone for Jewish folk.
I wander all over London pretty much every day and I think it fair to say that they are the most visible Jewish folk I come across.

Of course some folk like to close down any debate. Can't help but wonder what we are not allowed to say next. I can see that list of yours - which I believe has no legal status - growing and growing,

still meaning to trawl back through this thread to answer certain "points" put to me.

Still, buck-up giraffe, yesterday's march (I wasn't on) seems to have been essentially peaceful again. And you will no doubt be happy that my trip round London yesterday (not on the march) was also very peaceful. It''s generally a very safe city as anyone who knows it knows.

It's disgraceful now. They need to stop bringing foreign wars onto British streets.

Of course some folk like to close down any debate. Can't help but wonder what we are not allowed to say next. I can see that list of yours - which I believe has no legal status - growing and growing,

I'd say 'there are Jews at the march so you other Jews should stop voicing your concerns' is precisely trying to close down debate. Why are you prioritising some Jewish voices over others? Because they suit you.

What is it on my list "which has no legal basis" that you particularly object to? Because when I wrote the list I thought "here are some entirely reasonable things that no one could object to" and yet here you are.

Regarding Niyak Ghorbani.

A factually correct sentence can take on a different meaning depending on the context in which it is presented.

So for instance while it is factually correct to say ‘all lives matter’, if somebody were to attend a Black Lives Matter protest while holding a sign saying this, you could infer that they were actually a counter protestor, or at the least trying to diminish the aim of the protest.

If somebody were to attend a protest for the hostages while holding a sign stating how many children had been killed in Gaza, it would have the same impact.

So by the same reasoning, to hold a sign saying ‘Hamas are terrorists’ implies that people need to be reminded of this or that people are marching to support Hamas, which is unnecessary and inflammatory. It can be interpreted as an attempt to detract from the main aim of the march, which is to advocate for a ceasefire and freedom for Palestinians.

Either way the point of my post was to highlight that I don’t need to agree with what this sign says to support his right to free speech, to believe that he should not be assaulted, and that he should be treated fairly by the police.

I’m not sure I genuinely believe that posters are unable to understand that the meaning of a sentence depends on the context in which it is used.

Would you feel the same if his sign said "Houthis are terrorists"?

Given that there are many people on the marches chanting support for the Houthis and do need reminding of that fact?

Not sure about that, but I suppose he has done a good job of revealing unsavoury individuals within the marches who will respond with violence when they don’t agree with something!
If he equates the marches with support for Hamas, and by proxy he equates that with support for Iran, then I can imagine he might be feeling very worried. I can only guess but I imagine his right to free speech is also very important to him. I do have a lot of empathy for him, and regardless of whether I think he is communicating his valid message in the right way or not, he was treated in an appalling and unacceptable way.

"Trying to make it about Hamas is derailing and goady fucker behaviour"

What a ridiculous and inflammatory thing to say. If you honestly think this then you are the problem.

That’s a good question. Are people still doing that? If so then they really need to learn more about Yemen. What do you think would be the best way of doing this?

Its not safe for Jewish people.

It's not safe for anyone who wishes to peacefully stand with a sign declaring a fact that Hamas are terrorists. He gets attacked by numerous people and then arrested whilst the people assaulting him march onwards.

I don't call that safe. Safe for some not all.

@Offwiththecircus standards are low if you think 'essentially peaceful' is a win.

Not for certain people it wasn't.

Yes, there was chanting, leafleting and placards in support of the Houthis at the march.

I posted a video upthread apparently of the police arresting someone. You can see a man in the crowd saying "he was just saying Yemen Yemen make us proud turn another ship around, how the fuck is that racist?"

So clearly there is a lot of ignorance.

I would personally hope that the march organisers would put out info before the marches about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour and have people in the crowd monitoring this stuff themselves.

Oh dear 😵‍💫

So on the marches you can chant support for The Houthis and turning ships around, without being attacked or arrested. The Houthis sunk one ship and attacked another this week with crew murdered.

But you cannot stand with a sign stating a fact that Hamas are terrorists.

Interesting that and speaks for people around those doing that.

Indeed they are.

Maybe the Met Police might arrest the ones showing support for The Houthis a terrorist organisation that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Maybe they will arrest the individuals attacking the peaceful protester stating a fact about Hamas.

Pigs might fly though.

Looking at my list for yesterday

What could happen on the marches to make Jews less anxious about them?

No more 'from the river to the sea' ❌
No more of that bloody 'globalise the intifada' ❌
No attacking people carrying banners critical of Hamas (and more banners critical of Hamas) ❌
No intimidating people going into shops
No shaming people coming out of McDonalds
No Nazi or holocaust comparisons ❌
No people dressed in Hamas uniforms
No claiming Hamas are a 'resistance' organisation ❌
No ripping down of hostage posters
No claiming 'there were some Jews there so it must be fine' ❌

And if I'm allowed to add to the list which was written last December
No support for the Houthis ❌

The ones I haven't put a cross next to I don't know didn't happen, just that I haven't seen that they did happen.

@PeasfullPerson

don't you feel people do need reminding Hamas are terrorists though? It's an unequivocal fact Hamas are terrorists so I really don't mind people stating the fact. In fact acknowledging the fact Hamas are heinous terrorists brings to people's attention what the instruction to a cease fire is.

The protesters need to realise this is a foreign war instigated by a mass atrocity with the goal of Israelis to destroy the perpetrators of said atrocity. There is a wish from all quarters that civilian death is minimised and sensible governments are conscious of this. I think this description is a fair description of the war.

I think we really need footage of Hamas battling the IDF to bring home the message this is a conflict between armed parties and not just random munitions being dropped over Gaza as a form of punishment.....It simply isnt.

One good thing is that Hamas are terrorists but there are now fewer of them now capable of wreaking havoc in Israel.......

So by the same reasoning, to hold a sign saying ‘Hamas are terrorists’ implies that people need to be reminded of this or that people are marching to support Hamas, which is unnecessary and inflammatory. It can be interpreted as an attempt to detract from the main aim of the march, which is to advocate for a ceasefire and freedom for Palestinians.

By attacking him, the marchers demonstrated that some of them are in fact marching to support Hamas.

Fundamentally though, I disgree with your assessment. If these marches are, as repeatedly claimed, in support of a ceasefire and Palestinians generally then surely a poster condemning Hamas, which has brought such misery to Gaza, should be a very relevant and welcome contribution to the march and it's aims? And if not, why not?

One wouldn't expect Jewish folk to go on a march which was basically anti-semitic and a threat to Jewish folk would one?
One would expect some people to do things that are not in their best interests for reasons that matter to them, as people do all the time.

Can you stop calling us “Jewish folk”? We’re people, not some sort of fairy folk scampering about the Magic Faraway Tree, particularly the mythical, much vaunted and march approved most visible Jewish people in London.

By attacking him, the marchers demonstrated that some of them are in fact marching to support Hamas.

Yes. Saying that it is goady to bring an anti-Hamas sign to the peace marches because it supposes that some people there don't know that or support Hamas is rather undermined by the actions of the people on the march who attacked him confirming that.

@Limesodaagain I just want to acknowledge your apology and retraction from Page 8 and note that I have also retracted my post in response.

You make a fundamental error here by assuming that he was attacked because people support Hamas, that may or may not be true. It isn’t a given. It does show they have responded with violence to a statement that offends them.

In response to your question's, I clearly explain my reasoning in my original post, please see below.

Regarding Niyak Ghorbani.

A factually correct sentence can take on a different meaning depending on the context in which it is presented.

So for instance while it is factually correct to say ‘all lives matter’, if somebody were to attend a Black Lives Matter protest while holding a sign saying this, you could infer that they were actually a counter protestor, or at the least trying to diminish the aim of the protest.

If somebody were to attend a protest for the hostages while holding a sign stating how many children had been killed in Gaza, it would have the same impact.

So by the same reasoning, to hold a sign saying ‘Hamas are terrorists’ implies that people need to be reminded of this or that people are marching to support Hamas, which is unnecessary and inflammatory. It can be interpreted as an attempt to detract from the main aim of the march, which is to advocate for a ceasefire and freedom for Palestinians.

Either way the point of my post was to highlight that I don’t need to agree with what this sign says to support his right to free speech, to believe that he should not be assaulted, and that he should be treated fairly by the police.

I’m not sure I genuinely believe that posters are unable to understand that the meaning of a sentence depends on the context in which it is used.