Protests, counter protests and the police removing flags

[MiniFig]

I saw a clip on Twitter the other day of a met police officer (them again) telling a couple of young men with a flag of St George to go away, they were being provocative and taking their flags off them.

They were protesting against the Palistinian protest march. The reason the police gave was that they were being "close to racist".

https://twitter.com/DouglasKMurray/status/1716164385192673671

So it got me wondering. How come the police don't do the same thing at LWS events, or other (the conference in Glasgow for example). If women have arranged an event for women, and the usual suspects turn up with their flags and signs, how come they aren't "close to hate" and removed? Are there actual laws/regulations around this? or do individual officers make the call?

sorry, remembered it wrong. They were given a verbal warning and kept their flags.

Question still stands: how come there isn't more of this going on when women hold events?

Is it something to do with race and gender reassignment are protected under hate laws, women and nationality arent?

So if the police see a protest as racist they can stop it, and if they see a protest as misogynistic they cant?

The idea that flying the English flag anywhere in england can be wrong is bonkers.

The problem is St George's cross has been appropriated by far or alt right groups, football hooliganism etc for years and has been tainted by association, which means it can be provocative in some contexts.

On bunting at a garden party, or attending an England sporting match, you're probably fine. Waving it at a protest comprised of Palestinians and their supporters, which is likely to have a high proportion of Muslims and ethnic minorities attending, possibly not.

The various pride flags the TRAs bring to their protests don't have the same connotations in English cultural history.

I totally get that on occasion (more than enough tbh, which is depressing) the cross of St George is used by racists and at racist rallys, so i am aware that we/the police need to be careful.

But i think the specific event in that video was a load of people chanting some pretty provocative (anti Israel if not out and out anti semitic) stuff, and waving other flags - should be allowed to have a counter protest. TBH I am all for counter protests as long as people aren't masked, don't make threats and keep their distance. (so in this case: the men should have been moved further away perhaps)

not really sure what I'm getting at here, outside of inconsistent policing.

On bunting at a garden party, or attending an England sporting match, you're probably fine. Waving it at a protest comprised of Palestinians and their supporters, which is likely to have a high proportion of Muslims and ethnic minorities attending, possibly not.

I get that. But I'm thinking, then, why are TRAs allowed to descend en masse and wave flags and shout and be misogynistic in an agressive manner. How come the police are powerless in the face of all that?

Because the pride flags don't have the same connotations in English cultural history as the St George's cross.

The "various pride flags" that talk about how much they hate disobedient women?

you mean the ones with the accompanying chant of "kill terfs". Those flags?

Got it. Women. Don't. Matter.

but tell me about the connotations of this flag, please

FGS.

The flag of St George has a long and sometimes difficult history in the English psyche. It's sadly got some associations with hooliganism, racism etc which have been established over decades. That means that it can be provocative in some contexts and is easily recognised as such.

The pride flags do not (yet) have this same history. Apart from anything else they're a relatively much newer phenomenon. They don't have the same associations with far/alt right or banned groups.

None of that means women "don't matter" or that chants of "kill terfs" are acceptable.

I think you know the connotations. Which is why he was arrested.

https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1716177568036999268?t=6A2O-jKwz-Hf4_Xw2RgsyA&s=19

That tweet said he was arrested for shouting racial abuse, not waving a flag?

Speaking generally, I think there is a fair argument for banning simultaneous counter-protests where there is a history of violence, harassment, or trying to prevent other people's speech by disrupting an event.

People are still free to make their arguments or have a public protest at a different time.

If anything, you can argue that this supports free speech as it allows events to take place without disruption and without people fearing violence.

I wouldn't say do it on the basis of "hate", which becomes subjective; and anyway, while it makes sense that you shouldn't incite hate on grounds of race or sex, they would say they have a dislike of an ideology, and I can't really see the problem in theory with inciting hate on the grounds of ideology.

Yes it's ridiculous in the case of women that merely believe in biological sex and want to protect single sex spaces, but in principle you should be able to viciously attack an ideology and morally blame the people that support it.

You could however ban simultaneous counter-protests on the grounds of groups/individuals not being adult enough for that.

I believe the police have a duty to maintain order and prevent escalation. The men with the St George's flags may have been attacked, and then sent for friends to counter-attack, until you had a full blown riot.

Perhaps they don't see the same risk with clashes between GCs and TRAs?

There was a recent women's event where the police stopped the speaker, also to maintain order and prevent escalation. The police have their priorities all wrong, siding with aggressors.

The police side with whoever is the most aggressive, threatening and violent. Simples.

Realistically, I think there isn’t more proactive policing against TRAs at women’s rights events because the police aren’t concerned that it will escalate to a full blown riot. If there were more violence with more serious injuries and significant property damage at women’s rights events where TRAs kick off, the police would be more proactive (though I wouldn’t guarantee which side they would act against).

@MiniFig
The black flag you show is the shahada, or profession of faith (“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”) one of the 5 pillars of Islam. (The shahada itself, not wafting about a banner with it on.) It’s often carried at the Ashura March in London - & doubtless ones elsewhere too, it’s just the London one I’m used to.

Various terror groups who identify as Muslim use black & white white flags, but the ISIS flag, which I assume you were referencing, has a different design. (Oh & despite their “rallying point for all Muslims” claim; ISIS loathe[d] Hamas. Perhaps you thought that wouldn’t stop someone from supporting both proscribed organisations; & indeed going wild for all forms of “Islamic” terror? Who needs a coherent ideological framework beyond “kill the infidels!” right?)

The Met Police are familiar with the shahada; & also with the various flags that actually DO belong to proscribed organisations. Not least because they’re endlessly bombarded with messages/reports about “people/Muslims/P*kis with ISIS flags marching through London” every time Ashura comes round. They explain in this tweet about the protests at the weekend that the flags are different. The author of the tweet they were responding to seems to have been on Wikipedia at some point - they’re talking about the “jihadist flag” which, essentially, does not exist.

The behaviour of specific individuals carrying that flag at the protests may well have gone beyond being anti-Israel into being anti-Semitic; something that is of course never acceptable & I hope where that’s the case they’re successfully prosecuted. However, it’s really important to be clear that the shahada is not a “terrorist” flag. Carrying it does not signal support for any proscribed organisation. It is completely legal. Suggesting otherwise - particularly doing so in a way that effectively says “this guy’s a terrorist & the police aren’t doing anything!” - has the potential to cause serious harm.