Proposed march through Wooton Bassett

[FrozenNorth]

Here

Initially saw this on the BBC but this link gives a bit more detail. I support everyone's right to free speech but ... dear goodness, this seems to be exceptionally bad taste. My DH is an army doctor and, during his time in a free Afgan clinic for civilians run by the army, saved many Afgan lives. He's going out there again in January. I can imagine I'd be incredibly distressed if he'd lost his life in the conflict and somebody wrote to me explaining what he'd 'really' died for. Ugh. Maybe it's just my personal bias, but I can't help feel that the proposed march is sited to cause maximum potential for violent conflict and to cause maximum hurt to those who are bereaved.

Which one?
Myths and misconceptions?
Whaddya reckon to it?

(I see the right on brigade out in full force as usual huffing and puffing in faux outarage.)

I think every Women's Institute, Salvation Army group and general believer in considerate values in Britain should gather in WB on the day of the march and sing wholesome songs and even hymns and drown out these odd and selfish people with choruses of Jerusalem and Knees Up Mother Brown.

And Gay Pride should send along a representation, and women's groups, and the SWP.

that's the one...Vicki Snider..

yeah, finding it very interesting...

And yes, I've been deleted again.....do you think i should complain to the European court of human rights...?

"I think every Women's Institute, Salvation Army group and general believer in considerate values in Britain should gather in WB on the day of the march and sing wholesome songs and even hymns and drown out these odd and selfish people with choruses of Jerusalem and Knees Up Mother Brown"

But see here's my problem with this, enshrined in the laws of an open and free soceity are certain inallienable rights such as the right of association,the right to free-speech (with the obvious exceptions such as defemation) and the right to gather (or is it the right to congregate?). Now unfortunately this will some times lead to the law protecting the rights of certain people to act like dickheads and this is something you have to put up with if you want to live in a free and open soceity even if sometimes it makes you wish these dickheads would juyst fuck off.
If you were to do what you proposed it could be looked at as a deliberately inflammatory act designed to deny these people their rights. And we can't have a situation where by certainb groups are denied a right that is extended to other groups simply because we do not like what they are saying. That's one of the drawbacks of free-speech occassionaly you are going to have to hear something that you don't agree with or like. And if your method was followed (i.e. go along and drown them out) then it would validate them doing the same and it would become a vicious cycle. If you believe you have the right to drown them out at their march does that mean you'd support their right to show up at the next public funeral/parade to mourn a british soldier and chant and sing what they want in order to disrupt it?
surely the sensible thing to do is to ignore such a march completely.starve it of the oxegen of publicity and simply don't let it affect you. because any sort of confrontation or controversy is just what these people will want.

But isn't their front for this "we are marching for the innocent dead civilians" rather than "we're marching to insult british soldiers"?
As I've said I thnk they're grade A cocks, but the chances are I think that about a lot of groups that march or protest, but fortunately that doesn't give me the right to ban them marching for these things.
ultimately it's a police matter, but I thought the grounds for banning a parade was to do with inciting violence etc or the police fear that they could not control such a march, so I'm suprised they didn't just ban it based on one of these policies. It's a bit like the "love ulster" parades they tried to stage in Dublin a few years back, It's just so obvious trouble will kick off.

"They're entitled to express that point of view, but it is clearly insulting and WB is not the proper place for that view to be expressed."

Ah yes but isn't that the problem, at what point do we get to decide where is and where isn't a legitimate public place for a demonstration. Because if they believe what they are championing,i.e. that these soldiers are murderers, then couldn't it be argued that it is the perfect place for such a demonstration because this is the place where they are celebrating those who this group believe to be murderers.

Atlantis - yes, she could, couldn't she? I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that mosque!

dp - glad to see you have online contact with a gay person who you count as a friend, that's a step forwards. As for doing a Liz Jones (not quite sure what this ref is about) - ugh! The idea of doing anything connected to that woman makes me shudder.

I regularly come into contact with gay people and people of all religious backgrounds; the only way I could say that none of my friends was gay or Muslim would be because I was deliberately avoiding them. Obviously this depends on which part of the country you're in, but DP - do you reckon (honestly, now) that this is why none of your friends are from these groups?

moondog: "Griffin never said he found homosexuals creppy, he said some people found them creepy." Yes, true - but I think it's pretty clear from BNP statements about homosexuality that he is one of those people that he was referring to. I did rofl at the reply he got from the gay woman in the audience!

"If you were to do what you proposed it could be looked at as a deliberately inflammatory act designed to deny these people their rights."

er.. who's carrying out the deliberately inflammatory act?

This proposed march is a deliberately inflammatory act and it's weak to say it's just free speech and we can't tell them when and where.

Yes we can. And we should. Otherwise we are doormats.

We should be like the Indians in 1945 and 46. No violence, no fighting. Just "no", this is wrong and offensive.

It's so unpleasant and horrible. Nothing to do with free speech.

Speedy, even if he does find homosexuals creepy then he is allowed to do that too, startling as it may seem to do.It's not yet an Orwellian state where every non PC thought or viewpoint is eradicated. I guarantee that very many mainstream politicians and even quite pleasant ordinary folk find homosexuality creepy.

Yes, Vicky is my hero DP.Read on.She cuts through so much 'right on' crap that is a smokescreen for preventing all having access to a decent education.

What did you say to get yourself deleted I wonder? Can you quote yourself in the same way that we are 'allowed' to quote Griffin and Choudaray?

The most effective way to deal with Choudaray et al is to accord them no attention whatsoever.
Let them come and stamp around WB while everyone else gets on with washing the car or cleaning the house.

Knob that he is.

MQ - hear hear re your 'vicious' cycle post.

smallwhitecat: "they are marching to mourn people who they say have been murdered by UK forces in Afghanistan i.e. the premise is that the soldiers to whom the townspeople of WB pay their respects are murderers." - have they actually said that? Or is it the way you're interpreting their words? I don't interpret it that way at all. I don't think they're making a critique of our soldiers so much as a critique of the decisions our government has made to go to war in Afghanistan. You and I are seeing 6's and 9's - you're looking at the number one way up and I'm looking at it the other way around. It's the same number, but from two different viewpoints.

It's such a tragedy that it's such an insensitive bunch of people that is proposing any march of this kind at all. We already know about the tragic deaths of British soldiers. I would have no problem with a more moderate group of Muslims marching on Whitehall to remind us of the thousands of Muslims killed by Western troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. War is such a horrific thing and it is an insult to all concerned if we jingoistically only concern ourselves with the tragedies on our side. Perhaps with the timing of the Iraq inquiry such a march would be all the more significant if done now.

As ever it's the extremists who leap in and make a pig's ear out of something that is actually very important and worth serious consideration.

Moondog - I didn't say he wasn't allowed to think that way, just that he clearly does think that way.

Oh I like the idea of empty streets. However it would be utterly unachievable to accord them no publicity, and in the case of the BBC, a highly political act.

I'm not saying they're not being deliberately inflammatory, but if the march gets sanction from the authorities it becomes a legally recognised legitimate march and as such has the same protection and rights as any other march.
I think the police should deny it on the grounds that it is likely to become out of hand and unpoliceable.

"We should be like the Indians in 1945 and 46. No violence, no fighting. Just "no", this is wrong and offensive.

It's so unpleasant and horrible. Nothing to do with free speech."

But it has everything to do with free-speech saying no to someones message because in your eyes it is "wrong and offensive" means that freedom of speech is the very heart of the matter. And i don't deny that what they are doing is wrong and offensive morally, but legally surely they have the right to express views which are wrong and offensive as long as they are not defamatory or they do not incite or promote violence. Their message and what they are saying does not have to meet any standards of morals because no other march is subjected to such a test at law,all they have to do is make sure that they do not breach any laws pertaining to freedom of speech as i mentioned above which are mainly to do with inciting violence.
the idea that a group should be censored becaus what they are saying is wrong and offensive is a very dangerous route to go down because you open the flood gates for abuse of powers. what if the government decide that certain decisions of theirs are beyond the pale as far as protests go?

MQ you are on a roll today!

MMMMMM some fair points but being so wrong and offensive it is highly provocative and should be banned or removed in order to prevent breaches of the peace.

It's not about free speech at all.

They have free speech -- it's not curtailed by banning this march. They can say what they want. They have said what they want, no doubt they'll go on saying what they want and no one's threatening to lock them up for it.

Freedom to gather, march, demonstrate is a different thing altogether.

Think you are mixing up free speech with freedom to demonstrate -- I think a lot of people are making this mistake, which is not a difficult one to make, but in sensitive situations like this it's an important distinction.

"They have free speech -- it's not curtailed by banning this march. They can say what they want. They have said what they want, no doubt they'll go on saying what they want and no one's threatening to lock them up for it"
But they don't if you are restricting their right to say it in a place where you don't restrict another group from doing so.

As for the issue on freedom to demonstrate i thought (and i admit i am more familiar with Irish law than UK law so I welcom correction) the only restrictions on this is that the demonstrations were peaceful, stayed more than a mile away from parliment when in session and were subject to police modification if the police felt it was necessary to do so to prevent a breach of the peace/ disorder. If I am right (which i admit is open to correction) then once the police have given the go ahead and confirmed that they can control such a march and protect the demonstraters from hostile objectors they are with in their rights, under the heading of freedom to demonstrate, and have broken no laws even if they do upset or offend the morals of any number of people.

Peacocks, I don't understand how you can fail to regard this as a question of free speech. At the risk of raising the spectre of BNP within this convo again, their views are objectionable to many (most?) people in the UK, yet their marches - their very existence - are not banned. Why should this group be treated any differently? Would you object so strongly if they were more moderate? Or if the same group were proposing to march elsewhere?

Speedy;...Sorry, the Liz Jones ref; she spends £20 on toothpaste, feeds her cats on organic chickens....y'know...spends money like it's going out of fashion.....so she decided to spend some time with homeless people to feel more "real"...

..you have to love her..

Moondog;...Not sure what I said tbh, I never question MNHQ decisions...maybe the poster who requested my deletion will tell me why they reported it....?

"MQ you are on a roll today!"
validated.