Waltham Forest Guardian and council launch joint campaign to ban English Defence League march

The EDL marching through Walthamstow earlier this month

The EDL marching through Walthamstow earlier this month

First published in Waltham Forest by

TODAY your Guardian teams up with Waltham Forest Council to stop the English Defence League (EDL) peddling its hatred and prejudice in our borough for the second time in two months.

Our joint campaign ‘Waltham Forest – United. Strong. Together.’ calls on the government to step in and ban the EDL from going ahead with its planned march through Walthamstow on October 27.

The move follows hot on the heels of the EDL’s last parade through the town on September 1, when its route was blocked by opponents who outnumbered the marchers by 10 to one.

Waltham Forest Council leader Chris Robbins has written to Home Secretary Theresa May to demand a meeting on the subject of banning the EDL from its planned return.

The council is also hosting an online petition – which you can sign to show the EDL how unwelcome it is here.

Over the coming weeks, we’ll bring you regular updates on the campaign and tell you how you can get involved in keeping these people away from Waltham Forest.

Cllr Robbins said: “Knowingly putting our borough’s residents in harm’s way is not an option and I will do everything in my power to ensure the EDL is not able to spout its words of hatred in this borough.

"While we agree everyone has the right to protest, this latest stand by people with no connection to our borough is an abuse of that right.”

Why should this group of right-wing thugs be allowed to come here whenever they like, spreading venomous rhetoric and trying to stir up trouble in an area where thousands of people from different backgrounds live perfectly happily together?

Why should we stand back and see our residents put at risk?

Get involved, sign the petition and help us keep this malevolent group of right wing hooligans away from our borough.

Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter

Comments (79)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:51am Fri 21 Sep 12

Cornbeefur says...

Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?
Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

10:05am Fri 21 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

You know full well the Guardian and the Council are not very likely to say much of any significance about that, nor about the equally odious and uncivilised activities of the Socialist Worker's Party supporters, who were filmed throwing rocks, bottles and sticks on the1st September in front of the Town Hall.

Personally, I think they should either accept that these unpleasant people have a right to be offensive - and ban none of the marches which disrupt the borough by taking up space on our streets or be consistent and ban all of them - and just announce to the world that there are to be no rights of free speech or assembly in this borough.

But the council should not cherry-pick and favour one group over another on ideological lines.
You know full well the Guardian and the Council are not very likely to say much of any significance about that, nor about the equally odious and uncivilised activities of the Socialist Worker's Party supporters, who were filmed throwing rocks, bottles and sticks on the1st September in front of the Town Hall. Personally, I think they should either accept that these unpleasant people have a right to be offensive - and ban none of the marches which disrupt the borough by taking up space on our streets or be consistent and ban all of them - and just announce to the world that there are to be no rights of free speech or assembly in this borough. But the council should not cherry-pick and favour one group over another on ideological lines. Techno3
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 21 Sep 12

Mr Brittas says...

Excellent comment. I wonder if the Borough Commander is happy about Mr Robbins call for all of the people to take to the streets to counter demonstrate. If a rival political/religous group had made that statement it would be called an incitement for a violent confrontation but I assume Mr Robbins makes the call as Leader of the Council not as a Labour Party member
Excellent comment. I wonder if the Borough Commander is happy about Mr Robbins call for all of the people to take to the streets to counter demonstrate. If a rival political/religous group had made that statement it would be called an incitement for a violent confrontation but I assume Mr Robbins makes the call as Leader of the Council not as a Labour Party member Mr Brittas
  • Score: 0

10:57am Fri 21 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?
Why not send them the date and time of the next one of these events so they can.
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?[/p][/quote]Why not send them the date and time of the next one of these events so they can. E17_er
  • Score: 0

11:05am Fri 21 Sep 12

Harry J says...

The point surely is that the EDL want to come to Walthamstow specifically because its cohesive nature contradicts their skewed view of the world.

I agree that other marches are not without issues, and that some bandwagon jumpers from the far left like a punch up, but theses EDL thugs have no connection to this borough and no reason to be here excpet to create tension and violence.

Let's not get distratced for now by local radicals marching, but let's unite behind the Guardian and Council campaign and say we don't want them here and we won't have them. In an ideal worls, I'd say let's let them march and simply turn our backs in silence as they pass by, but that's easier for me to say as white middle calss male, than for some of my asian friends and neighbours.
The point surely is that the EDL want to come to Walthamstow specifically because its cohesive nature contradicts their skewed view of the world. I agree that other marches are not without issues, and that some bandwagon jumpers from the far left like a punch up, but theses EDL thugs have no connection to this borough and no reason to be here excpet to create tension and violence. Let's not get distratced for now by local radicals marching, but let's unite behind the Guardian and Council campaign and say we don't want them here and we won't have them. In an ideal worls, I'd say let's let them march and simply turn our backs in silence as they pass by, but that's easier for me to say as white middle calss male, than for some of my asian friends and neighbours. Harry J
  • Score: 0

11:35am Fri 21 Sep 12

tmann says...

Why demand a ban? Last time the EDL were heavily outnumbered so get these people on the streets again and every time the EDL plan to march in Walthamstow/Waltham Forest. Don't hide behind a ban, a ban will only feed the EDL's sense of victimhood. Get on the streets and defeat the EDL face to face!
Why demand a ban? Last time the EDL were heavily outnumbered so get these people on the streets again and every time the EDL plan to march in Walthamstow/Waltham Forest. Don't hide behind a ban, a ban will only feed the EDL's sense of victimhood. Get on the streets and defeat the EDL face to face! tmann
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Manxman2 says...

What a joke. Middle class journalists and lefty councillors joining together with the extreme left middle class students of the UAF and local muslim thugs to prevent a legal and peaceful demonstration by working class English people in part of our capital city.

Why are these hypocrites always absent when muslims are attacking gay people or praising suicide bombers?

Its a bizarre situation. Communism was responsible for the extermination of many more people than nazism and yet nobody questions this. To see middle class lesbians joining forces with militant muslims who depise them and their lifestyle and then attacking white working class people who endured the blitz and have been driven out of East London by forced mass immigration is just wierd.

Immigration is driven by big business. Why do lefties support it, particularly in view of the fact that most immigrants are anything but 'liberal'?

Middle class 'liberal' pretend commie white students patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a child, unable to understand complex issues like 'multi-culti' and therefore immune to being held responsible for their actions and beliefs.

These students and lefties go on about how much they hate capitalism and the West and being white, but they are more than happy to enjoy the many great things white Western civilisation has brought us including medicines, technology and a massive increase in life expectancy for everyone around the world.
What a joke. Middle class journalists and lefty councillors joining together with the extreme left middle class students of the UAF and local muslim thugs to prevent a legal and peaceful demonstration by working class English people in part of our capital city. Why are these hypocrites always absent when muslims are attacking gay people or praising suicide bombers? Its a bizarre situation. Communism was responsible for the extermination of many more people than nazism and yet nobody questions this. To see middle class lesbians joining forces with militant muslims who depise them and their lifestyle and then attacking white working class people who endured the blitz and have been driven out of East London by forced mass immigration is just wierd. Immigration is driven by big business. Why do lefties support it, particularly in view of the fact that most immigrants are anything but 'liberal'? Middle class 'liberal' pretend commie white students patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a child, unable to understand complex issues like 'multi-culti' and therefore immune to being held responsible for their actions and beliefs. These students and lefties go on about how much they hate capitalism and the West and being white, but they are more than happy to enjoy the many great things white Western civilisation has brought us including medicines, technology and a massive increase in life expectancy for everyone around the world. Manxman2
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Fri 21 Sep 12

I.Ride says...

The EDL will never go away, Why should they they belong in England. How can any immigrant say the EDL dont belong here? Have a look at the big picture the EDL cost the government nothing.. Immigrants cost us millions, Close the gates. EDL.....
The EDL will never go away, Why should they they belong in England. How can any immigrant say the EDL dont belong here? Have a look at the big picture the EDL cost the government nothing.. Immigrants cost us millions, Close the gates. EDL..... I.Ride
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Fri 21 Sep 12

E17_er says...

I.Ride wrote:
The EDL will never go away, Why should they they belong in England. How can any immigrant say the EDL dont belong here? Have a look at the big picture the EDL cost the government nothing.. Immigrants cost us millions, Close the gates. EDL.....
"Policing EDL demo in Bristol cost force £495,000"

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-england-bri
stol-19213204

Good to know that my council tax and income tax are being used to deal with these numbskulls as opposed to being spent on things like Schools or Libraries.
[quote][p][bold]I.Ride[/bold] wrote: The EDL will never go away, Why should they they belong in England. How can any immigrant say the EDL dont belong here? Have a look at the big picture the EDL cost the government nothing.. Immigrants cost us millions, Close the gates. EDL.....[/p][/quote]"Policing EDL demo in Bristol cost force £495,000" http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-england-bri stol-19213204 Good to know that my council tax and income tax are being used to deal with these numbskulls as opposed to being spent on things like Schools or Libraries. E17_er
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Fri 21 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Manxman2 wrote:
What a joke. Middle class journalists and lefty councillors joining together with the extreme left middle class students of the UAF and local muslim thugs to prevent a legal and peaceful demonstration by working class English people in part of our capital city.

Why are these hypocrites always absent when muslims are attacking gay people or praising suicide bombers?

Its a bizarre situation. Communism was responsible for the extermination of many more people than nazism and yet nobody questions this. To see middle class lesbians joining forces with militant muslims who depise them and their lifestyle and then attacking white working class people who endured the blitz and have been driven out of East London by forced mass immigration is just wierd.

Immigration is driven by big business. Why do lefties support it, particularly in view of the fact that most immigrants are anything but 'liberal'?

Middle class 'liberal' pretend commie white students patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a child, unable to understand complex issues like 'multi-culti' and therefore immune to being held responsible for their actions and beliefs.

These students and lefties go on about how much they hate capitalism and the West and being white, but they are more than happy to enjoy the many great things white Western civilisation has brought us including medicines, technology and a massive increase in life expectancy for everyone around the world.
I don't hate capitalism. I embrace it. I'm white. I live in the area. I also don't want a bunch of racist thugs turning up spreading their bile in the same way that I don't support the UAF (who if you read the article aren't included in this).

It is possible to oppose more than one thing you know. Extremism of any form is simply wrong. Show me an example of middle class lesbians saying "Yep Sharia Law sounds good".

There isn't one.
[quote][p][bold]Manxman2[/bold] wrote: What a joke. Middle class journalists and lefty councillors joining together with the extreme left middle class students of the UAF and local muslim thugs to prevent a legal and peaceful demonstration by working class English people in part of our capital city. Why are these hypocrites always absent when muslims are attacking gay people or praising suicide bombers? Its a bizarre situation. Communism was responsible for the extermination of many more people than nazism and yet nobody questions this. To see middle class lesbians joining forces with militant muslims who depise them and their lifestyle and then attacking white working class people who endured the blitz and have been driven out of East London by forced mass immigration is just wierd. Immigration is driven by big business. Why do lefties support it, particularly in view of the fact that most immigrants are anything but 'liberal'? Middle class 'liberal' pretend commie white students patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a child, unable to understand complex issues like 'multi-culti' and therefore immune to being held responsible for their actions and beliefs. These students and lefties go on about how much they hate capitalism and the West and being white, but they are more than happy to enjoy the many great things white Western civilisation has brought us including medicines, technology and a massive increase in life expectancy for everyone around the world.[/p][/quote]I don't hate capitalism. I embrace it. I'm white. I live in the area. I also don't want a bunch of racist thugs turning up spreading their bile in the same way that I don't support the UAF (who if you read the article aren't included in this). It is possible to oppose more than one thing you know. Extremism of any form is simply wrong. Show me an example of middle class lesbians saying "Yep Sharia Law sounds good". There isn't one. E17_er
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Fri 21 Sep 12

born&bredE17 says...

'thousands of people from different backgrounds live perfectly happily together?'

'However, here in Walthamstow, we are not angry about who lives here. In fact we are proud of our diverse community and the many positive things we all bring to the area.'

Why is it then every saturday outside The Mall I am accosted by people preaching about Islam and that I should denounce my current way of life to convert. Does not sound like these people are too happy to co-exist with me as I am now, I wish the guardian would campaign to stop that gauntlet run on a saturday!!!
'thousands of people from different backgrounds live perfectly happily together?' 'However, here in Walthamstow, we are not angry about who lives here. In fact we are proud of our diverse community and the many positive things we all bring to the area.' Why is it then every saturday outside The Mall I am accosted by people preaching about Islam and that I should denounce my current way of life to convert. Does not sound like these people are too happy to co-exist with me as I am now, I wish the guardian would campaign to stop that gauntlet run on a saturday!!! born&bredE17
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Nairn says...

@born&bredE17 - hmmm I suppose you don't see the other 4 or 5 regular groups that are in the Town Square by the Mall every Saturday? The SWP for example?

Have you been forced to denounce your current way of life to convert? Or join the SWP? Or join any of the other groups/causes that are there every Saturday?

I'm not Muslim but I have no problem with people preaching about Islam in the Town Square...or the Christians who seem to have an equal presence there each Saturday...or the SWP.

I agree that sometimes it feels like there is no escape from the number of groups and causes there on a Saturday but I just ignore them. The square is big enough to ignore them if you really want to. No-one is surrounding you and holding you hostage in that area so that you are forced to hear their message, whatever that may be.

Taking the same logic as you have applied here therefore, it seems that Christians are not happy to co-exist here either.

Ooooer - we're all doomed!
@born&bredE17 - hmmm I suppose you don't see the other 4 or 5 regular groups that are in the Town Square by the Mall every Saturday? The SWP for example? Have you been forced to denounce your current way of life to convert? Or join the SWP? Or join any of the other groups/causes that are there every Saturday? I'm not Muslim but I have no problem with people preaching about Islam in the Town Square...or the Christians who seem to have an equal presence there each Saturday...or the SWP. I agree that sometimes it feels like there is no escape from the number of groups and causes there on a Saturday but I just ignore them. The square is big enough to ignore them if you really want to. No-one is surrounding you and holding you hostage in that area so that you are forced to hear their message, whatever that may be. Taking the same logic as you have applied here therefore, it seems that Christians are not happy to co-exist here either. Ooooer - we're all doomed! Nairn
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Fri 21 Sep 12

born&bredE17 says...

@ Nairn you are quite right re: other groups but if you are attempting to tell me that their message is as aggressive as the islam preachers than you must be there on different occasions to me, besides, for clarification I referred to outside the mall, not the town square, by that I mean the market entrance.

Let me ask you a question: As you mention the square/market/mall entrance etc are indeed big enough to ignore them but why should I have to, if I do not approach them for their views who says they can try and impose theirs univited on me???
@ Nairn you are quite right re: other groups but if you are attempting to tell me that their message is as aggressive as the islam preachers than you must be there on different occasions to me, besides, for clarification I referred to outside the mall, not the town square, by that I mean the market entrance. Let me ask you a question: As you mention the square/market/mall entrance etc are indeed big enough to ignore them but why should I have to, if I do not approach them for their views who says they can try and impose theirs univited on me??? born&bredE17
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Nairn says...

@born&bredE17

Totally agree that if you do not approach people they should not try to force themselves/their views on you but I have to say that in over 20 yrs of living here this has never happened to me.

I have however been 'stuck' walking along the market itself behind groups of Christians shouting, in my face but not necessarily at me, that we are indeed all doomed unless we repent and see God and the one and only true saviour etc etc. In fact, there was one time recently when someone reported them to the police as they were encouraging young people (I mean children) to run up to shoppers and thrust leaflets at us. Far more 'in your face' than I have experienced from any other group in the area.

I find it far more intrusive when people knock at my door and expect me to stop what I'm doing, in my own home, to talk to them/give them money or whatever they are asking for. Likewise I find it more intrusive when I get who knows how many leaflet from religious, political, pressure groups/causes through my door. a) whoever is calling or delivering the leaflets has trespassed by entering the boundary of where I live without my asking them to and b) I have no alternative but to pick up the leaflet from INSIDE my house and throw it away.

Perhaps we should call for a ban on this kind of approach - an approach we cannot escape from!


But maybe I've just been lucky - or have a 'not likely to be converted' look about me ;-)
@born&bredE17 Totally agree that if you do not approach people they should not try to force themselves/their views on you but I have to say that in over 20 yrs of living here this has never happened to me. I have however been 'stuck' walking along the market itself behind groups of Christians shouting, in my face but not necessarily at me, that we are indeed all doomed unless we repent and see God and the one and only true saviour etc etc. In fact, there was one time recently when someone reported them to the police as they were encouraging young people (I mean children) to run up to shoppers and thrust leaflets at us. Far more 'in your face' than I have experienced from any other group in the area. I find it far more intrusive when people knock at my door and expect me to stop what I'm doing, in my own home, to talk to them/give them money or whatever they are asking for. Likewise I find it more intrusive when I get who knows how many leaflet from religious, political, pressure groups/causes through my door. a) whoever is calling or delivering the leaflets has trespassed by entering the boundary of where I live without my asking them to and b) I have no alternative but to pick up the leaflet from INSIDE my house and throw it away. Perhaps we should call for a ban on this kind of approach - an approach we cannot escape from! But maybe I've just been lucky - or have a 'not likely to be converted' look about me ;-) Nairn
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

I believe that the community should come out in strength , like last time, only this time with more peole and show our united opposition to the EDL.
The big TUC demonstration on 20th October with be a physical represntation of unity against cuts and closues- something this community knows all about. In Waltham Forest we should build on the aftermath of this demo to deliver something similar against the EDL, if they show up.
It is the trade unions along with the local community who have the authority to unite people against racist and facsist organisations and to stop these organisations gaining an echo.
I'm opposed to a carnival in one part of the borough whilst the EDL march in another part of the borough- if that is what is being proposed, I believe it would be a mistake.
And for the record... I have campaigned in this borough for 20 years against cuts, closures and privatisation. I have stood outside the Mall and petitioned against everything from school meals being privatised to libraries being closed. People who are tarnishing community campaigners and socialists with the EDL are making a huge mistake. The EDL come into the borough and try and get us to point the finger at each other for our problems, we blame the rich, the bankers and the sell-out poiticians for our problems....big difference.
I believe that the community should come out in strength , like last time, only this time with more peole and show our united opposition to the EDL. The big TUC demonstration on 20th October with be a physical represntation of unity against cuts and closues- something this community knows all about. In Waltham Forest we should build on the aftermath of this demo to deliver something similar against the EDL, if they show up. It is the trade unions along with the local community who have the authority to unite people against racist and facsist organisations and to stop these organisations gaining an echo. I'm opposed to a carnival in one part of the borough whilst the EDL march in another part of the borough- if that is what is being proposed, I believe it would be a mistake. And for the record... I have campaigned in this borough for 20 years against cuts, closures and privatisation. I have stood outside the Mall and petitioned against everything from school meals being privatised to libraries being closed. People who are tarnishing community campaigners and socialists with the EDL are making a huge mistake. The EDL come into the borough and try and get us to point the finger at each other for our problems, we blame the rich, the bankers and the sell-out poiticians for our problems....big difference. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

5:10pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

Nancy I understand you are a member of the Socialist Party, which is different from the Socialsit Worker's Party which controls UAF and its proxy WAWF.

How do you feel about sharing a platform with people who throw bricks stones and peicesof wood? Do you condemn such violence or are you willing to ignore or even encourage it?

How do you feel about the anti-semitic attitudes within the Socialist Worker's party? Do you condone such attitudes or condemn them?

And while you call for unity, should it be a completely uncritica, blind unity which requires everyone to leave thier brains behind when they demonstrate or do you consider that there are some forms of unity which are dangerous and counter-productive? Do you feel, for instance, that it is right to march alongside extremist islamic fundamentalists, such as the groups who were present on 1st September arguing for the impostion of Sharia law in Waltham Forest?

Are you aware that you would be among the first people that such groups would muzzle and persecute if such people ever had their way? Will you be willing to denounce such people if they turn up again and tell them that they are as unwelcome in this borough as the EDL?
Nancy I understand you are a member of the Socialist Party, which is different from the Socialsit Worker's Party which controls UAF and its proxy WAWF. How do you feel about sharing a platform with people who throw bricks stones and peicesof wood? Do you condemn such violence or are you willing to ignore or even encourage it? How do you feel about the anti-semitic attitudes within the Socialist Worker's party? Do you condone such attitudes or condemn them? And while you call for unity, should it be a completely uncritica, blind unity which requires everyone to leave thier brains behind when they demonstrate or do you consider that there are some forms of unity which are dangerous and counter-productive? Do you feel, for instance, that it is right to march alongside extremist islamic fundamentalists, such as the groups who were present on 1st September arguing for the impostion of Sharia law in Waltham Forest? Are you aware that you would be among the first people that such groups would muzzle and persecute if such people ever had their way? Will you be willing to denounce such people if they turn up again and tell them that they are as unwelcome in this borough as the EDL? Techno3
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.
I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Cornbeefur says...

I do not agree with the EDL's policies but in the absence of clarity from the main three parties on immigration and groups hoping to impose Sharia Law, is there any wonder that the EDF have a certain following?
I do not agree with the EDL's policies but in the absence of clarity from the main three parties on immigration and groups hoping to impose Sharia Law, is there any wonder that the EDF have a certain following? Cornbeefur
  • Score: 0

6:33pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

The point here is that there are enough resources for everybody to have a job and a home and the ability to live peacefully together. There is £800 billion locked into the vaults of the banks, it's our money, we gave it to the bankers and yet rather than demand it back our council cascaded Tory cuts and did the bankers dirty work. We now have 600 less jobs locally than we did in 2010. The EDL think they can march in, scapegoat the immigrant community and get us all fighting amongst ourselves. Our job is to unify against them and point the finger at the real culprits....the bosses.
The point here is that there are enough resources for everybody to have a job and a home and the ability to live peacefully together. There is £800 billion locked into the vaults of the banks, it's our money, we gave it to the bankers and yet rather than demand it back our council cascaded Tory cuts and did the bankers dirty work. We now have 600 less jobs locally than we did in 2010. The EDL think they can march in, scapegoat the immigrant community and get us all fighting amongst ourselves. Our job is to unify against them and point the finger at the real culprits....the bosses. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

10:19pm Fri 21 Sep 12

Brisbane says...

Newspaper campaigns against free speech. You couldn't make it up. I guess this explains why the Guardian's coverage of this issue is so utterly lacking in objectivity.
And no, I'm not an EDL supporter, I just think it's a very scary thing to try and ban people from saying things just because you personally don't agree with them.
Newspaper campaigns against free speech. You couldn't make it up. I guess this explains why the Guardian's coverage of this issue is so utterly lacking in objectivity. And no, I'm not an EDL supporter, I just think it's a very scary thing to try and ban people from saying things just because you personally don't agree with them. Brisbane
  • Score: 0

11:02pm Fri 21 Sep 12

fabster says...

Salman Rushdie once said "It's when you have to defend something you despise and loathe that you realise you believe in freedom of speech"
Salman Rushdie once said "It's when you have to defend something you despise and loathe that you realise you believe in freedom of speech" fabster
  • Score: 0

12:05am Sat 22 Sep 12

mdj says...

As somebody who values the WF Guardian as a place to express opinion and get facts out to people who may be unaware of them, any collaboration with the Council which has done so much to damage it is bound to set off alarm bells, regardless of the issue.
Or is it a question of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer?
As somebody who values the WF Guardian as a place to express opinion and get facts out to people who may be unaware of them, any collaboration with the Council which has done so much to damage it is bound to set off alarm bells, regardless of the issue. Or is it a question of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer? mdj
  • Score: 0

2:17am Sat 22 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

Nancy Taaffe wrote:
I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.
Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you.

It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently.

I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life?

The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer.

There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.
[quote][p][bold]Nancy Taaffe[/bold] wrote: I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.[/p][/quote]Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you. It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently. I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life? The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer. There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so. Techno3
  • Score: 0

6:51am Sat 22 Sep 12

KWyatt-Lown says...

I was brought up to believe (by my committed Socialist father) that one of the core objectives behind the wartime sacrifices of our past generations was to protect the right of freedom of speech. For all of its shortcomings, we continue to live in one of the most cultured, liberated and tolerant countries on the planet where people with every point of view enjoy a right to be heard.

As detestable and loathsome as we might find the views of any extremist faction, we should never loose sight of the fact that everyone in this country has a right to free speech. Of course there are laws against actions such as incitement to riot. That’s why we have a (largely unarmed) police force to control situations in which damage or injury might be caused and the right of peaceful protest abused.

What we don’t need is band-waggoning by local politicians – or local papers - exploiting a situation and, if anything, providing even more exposure for widely unwelcome views and serving to fuel even greater civil disobedience.

What we want from our politicians is responsible and prudent management of our resources. What we want from our press is independent and objective reporting of the facts. Who gives these influencers within a community the right to inflict their own extreme bias, one way or another, here on Animal Farm? Or has Orwell been proven right: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
I was brought up to believe (by my committed Socialist father) that one of the core objectives behind the wartime sacrifices of our past generations was to protect the right of freedom of speech. For all of its shortcomings, we continue to live in one of the most cultured, liberated and tolerant countries on the planet where people with every point of view enjoy a right to be heard. As detestable and loathsome as we might find the views of any extremist faction, we should never loose sight of the fact that everyone in this country has a right to free speech. Of course there are laws against actions such as incitement to riot. That’s why we have a (largely unarmed) police force to control situations in which damage or injury might be caused and the right of peaceful protest abused. What we don’t need is band-waggoning by local politicians – or local papers - exploiting a situation and, if anything, providing even more exposure for widely unwelcome views and serving to fuel even greater civil disobedience. What we want from our politicians is responsible and prudent management of our resources. What we want from our press is independent and objective reporting of the facts. Who gives these influencers within a community the right to inflict their own extreme bias, one way or another, here on Animal Farm? Or has Orwell been proven right: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”. KWyatt-Lown
  • Score: 0

10:30am Sat 22 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Brisbane wrote:
Newspaper campaigns against free speech. You couldn't make it up. I guess this explains why the Guardian's coverage of this issue is so utterly lacking in objectivity.
And no, I'm not an EDL supporter, I just think it's a very scary thing to try and ban people from saying things just because you personally don't agree with them.
Not really about preventing free speech.

More about suggesting that perhaps a bunch of drunkards turning up into a place where they do not live and causing trouble and costing the local area cash to police is (whom they have refused to work with) is something that is not wanted.

Very similar to a club banning a set of away fans due to previous behaviour.
[quote][p][bold]Brisbane[/bold] wrote: Newspaper campaigns against free speech. You couldn't make it up. I guess this explains why the Guardian's coverage of this issue is so utterly lacking in objectivity. And no, I'm not an EDL supporter, I just think it's a very scary thing to try and ban people from saying things just because you personally don't agree with them.[/p][/quote]Not really about preventing free speech. More about suggesting that perhaps a bunch of drunkards turning up into a place where they do not live and causing trouble and costing the local area cash to police is (whom they have refused to work with) is something that is not wanted. Very similar to a club banning a set of away fans due to previous behaviour. E17_er
  • Score: 0

11:13am Sat 22 Sep 12

Manxman2 says...

Middle class lefties ignore homophobia, hatred of Jews, attacks, robberies and rapes of white children when it is black or muslim people doing it.

They patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a disabled child and believe they should not be held responsible for their actions or hate.

The lefty coalition is a pathetic contradiction of everything they pretend they believe in and all the mainstream politicians support them.
Middle class lefties ignore homophobia, hatred of Jews, attacks, robberies and rapes of white children when it is black or muslim people doing it. They patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a disabled child and believe they should not be held responsible for their actions or hate. The lefty coalition is a pathetic contradiction of everything they pretend they believe in and all the mainstream politicians support them. Manxman2
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Sat 22 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Manxman2 wrote:
Middle class lefties ignore homophobia, hatred of Jews, attacks, robberies and rapes of white children when it is black or muslim people doing it.

They patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a disabled child and believe they should not be held responsible for their actions or hate.

The lefty coalition is a pathetic contradiction of everything they pretend they believe in and all the mainstream politicians support them.
Slightly obsessed with colour aren't we? I imagine anyone with a political view to the left of Mosley is a lefty to you.

EDL supporters seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with their coming here is automatically in favour of Sharia law. It is perfectly possible to be against both. It is also possible to agree with some people about some things and vehemently disagree about others.

I imagine it is hard to comprehend these things as an EDL supporter when you have one brain cell focussed on racist hatred, one focussed on finding the nearest supplier of extra strength lager the solitary remaining one taken up with all remaining tasks.
[quote][p][bold]Manxman2[/bold] wrote: Middle class lefties ignore homophobia, hatred of Jews, attacks, robberies and rapes of white children when it is black or muslim people doing it. They patronisingly regard anyone who is not white as being like a disabled child and believe they should not be held responsible for their actions or hate. The lefty coalition is a pathetic contradiction of everything they pretend they believe in and all the mainstream politicians support them.[/p][/quote]Slightly obsessed with colour aren't we? I imagine anyone with a political view to the left of Mosley is a lefty to you. EDL supporters seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with their coming here is automatically in favour of Sharia law. It is perfectly possible to be against both. It is also possible to agree with some people about some things and vehemently disagree about others. I imagine it is hard to comprehend these things as an EDL supporter when you have one brain cell focussed on racist hatred, one focussed on finding the nearest supplier of extra strength lager the solitary remaining one taken up with all remaining tasks. E17_er
  • Score: 0

6:57pm Sat 22 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) is banned.

BANNED PREDECESSORS INCLUDE:

Al-Muhajiroun
Al Ghurabaa
Islam4UK
Call to Submission
Islamic Path
London School of Sharia
The Saved Sect or Saviour Sect

. TIME THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE (EDL) WAS BANNED TOO.
Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) is banned. BANNED PREDECESSORS INCLUDE: Al-Muhajiroun Al Ghurabaa Islam4UK Call to Submission Islamic Path London School of Sharia The Saved Sect or Saviour Sect . TIME THE ENGLISH DEFENCE LEAGUE (EDL) WAS BANNED TOO. TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

7:08pm Sat 22 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

Cornbeefur wrote:
Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?
EDL? ... as always, idiotic, retarded, mentally challenged, Neanderthal's illiterate and moronic. Saving Ingurlaaand's culture and heritage? Can't read nor analyse the news nor understand current affairs, can't get it up anymore, don't attend church- and you call yourselves gaurdians of Christian Ingurrlaand??? Hope you all get sent to Australia you dirty unwanted ugs and Orchs! rejects, deadlegs and undesirables- filthy knuckle-dragging wretches! Get out of my country! You will NOT hijack my country!!!
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?[/p][/quote]EDL? ... as always, idiotic, retarded, mentally challenged, Neanderthal's illiterate and moronic. Saving Ingurlaaand's culture and heritage? Can't read nor analyse the news nor understand current affairs, can't get it up anymore, don't attend church- and you call yourselves gaurdians of Christian Ingurrlaand??? Hope you all get sent to Australia you dirty unwanted ugs and Orchs! rejects, deadlegs and undesirables- filthy knuckle-dragging wretches! Get out of my country! You will NOT hijack my country!!! TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

8:14pm Sat 22 Sep 12

dan north says...

I cant believe that uaf /swp and other left wing extremists who are supporting islamofacists against the group (edl) who should have the right for freedom of speech...i was in walthamostow when bottles ,bricks ,eggs etc where thrown at us edl.....I asked the police officers if any arrests where likely to be made and they said "no" if any organsisation that should be writing to teresa may to ban any group it should be EDL TO ASK FOR UAF BE BANNED ,AS EVERYTIME UAF ARE NEAR EDL SUPPORTERS THERE IS VIOLENCE.....dont allow UAF to protest on same day or miles away from EDL AND THE DAY WILL BE PEACEFUL LIKE MOST DEMOS ARE WITH EDL WHEN UAF THUGS AINT AROUND..
I cant believe that uaf /swp and other left wing extremists who are supporting islamofacists against the group (edl) who should have the right for freedom of speech...i was in walthamostow when bottles ,bricks ,eggs etc where thrown at us edl.....I asked the police officers if any arrests where likely to be made and they said "no" if any organsisation that should be writing to teresa may to ban any group it should be EDL TO ASK FOR UAF BE BANNED ,AS EVERYTIME UAF ARE NEAR EDL SUPPORTERS THERE IS VIOLENCE.....dont allow UAF to protest on same day or miles away from EDL AND THE DAY WILL BE PEACEFUL LIKE MOST DEMOS ARE WITH EDL WHEN UAF THUGS AINT AROUND.. dan north
  • Score: 0

8:21pm Sat 22 Sep 12

RikTring says...

Seems to me along with the shoddy one sided reporting by the guardian about the last EDL march they neglect to report the facts as they were.
This includes that it was in fact those who opposed the EDL acted as thugs and bigots by getting violent and the like. And also the fact that the police had no conrolt over all the so called peaceful lefties that were throwing bricks bottles and other missiles at the EDL.
It goes to show that it is a one rule for one and another rule for others.
Shame on you Guardian for trying to stop free speech in OUR society if it wasnt for our so called right to free speech your shoddy little local rag would not exist.
Seems to me along with the shoddy one sided reporting by the guardian about the last EDL march they neglect to report the facts as they were. This includes that it was in fact those who opposed the EDL acted as thugs and bigots by getting violent and the like. And also the fact that the police had no conrolt over all the so called peaceful lefties that were throwing bricks bottles and other missiles at the EDL. It goes to show that it is a one rule for one and another rule for others. Shame on you Guardian for trying to stop free speech in OUR society if it wasnt for our so called right to free speech your shoddy little local rag would not exist. RikTring
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Sat 22 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

Techno3 wrote:
Nancy Taaffe wrote:
I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.
Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you.

It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently.

I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life?

The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer.

There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers and youth of this borough who came out to "Stop The EDL" on 1st Sept, and I will again. I will argue on here and whatever forum that central to the fighback against austerity and the growth of far rights ideas is the organised working class. I do not support backward idea's whether that is in regards to gay rights, abortion or womens rights in general. I applaud all those young women who marched today on the slutwalk. What the EDL represent is a threat to all of those things and much more and therefore it is totally right that we have a massive show of organised opposition to them on 27th Oct and that central to this movement has to be the local, regional and national trade unions.
I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing- on such policies the far right can gain traction, as they are in Europe.
In neighbourhoods of Athens today there are vicious attacks being carried out on immigrants as the Golden Dawn have not only strengthened their political position but have organised street gangs in poor working class areas, they have done this on the backs of the failure of the establishment politicians to stop austerity.As co-ordination of the anti-cuts union we have organised over 2 years to stop cuts. I have stood as a TUSC candidate both in The General Election and in the GLA and I would like to do so again.
To stop the violence and division we have to stop the EDL on 27th and to stop the misery and alienation we need to stop cuts and improve life for all.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nancy Taaffe[/bold] wrote: I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.[/p][/quote]Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you. It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently. I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life? The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer. There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.[/p][/quote]I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers and youth of this borough who came out to "Stop The EDL" on 1st Sept, and I will again. I will argue on here and whatever forum that central to the fighback against austerity and the growth of far rights ideas is the organised working class. I do not support backward idea's whether that is in regards to gay rights, abortion or womens rights in general. I applaud all those young women who marched today on the slutwalk. What the EDL represent is a threat to all of those things and much more and therefore it is totally right that we have a massive show of organised opposition to them on 27th Oct and that central to this movement has to be the local, regional and national trade unions. I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing- on such policies the far right can gain traction, as they are in Europe. In neighbourhoods of Athens today there are vicious attacks being carried out on immigrants as the Golden Dawn have not only strengthened their political position but have organised street gangs in poor working class areas, they have done this on the backs of the failure of the establishment politicians to stop austerity.As co-ordination of the anti-cuts union we have organised over 2 years to stop cuts. I have stood as a TUSC candidate both in The General Election and in the GLA and I would like to do so again. To stop the violence and division we have to stop the EDL on 27th and to stop the misery and alienation we need to stop cuts and improve life for all. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

11:17pm Sat 22 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

EDL??? With a reading age of 12 and the grammar skills of a Romanian pickpocket, EDL members are the ideal leaders for the inbred rats of INGURLAND. These filthy dregs, plebs and chavs- spawn of sleazy drunken ***ting victorian harlots appreciate the finer things in life; Special Brew, fake Chinese fags and The Dole. Most decent BRITISH people do not wish to integrate with such low lifes and filthy scum. Plebs, the lot of them! Disgusting underclass of retards,inbreds,moro
ns, ogs & imbeciles. No Suspenders!
EDL??? With a reading age of 12 and the grammar skills of a Romanian pickpocket, EDL members are the ideal leaders for the inbred rats of INGURLAND. These filthy dregs, plebs and chavs- spawn of sleazy drunken ***ting victorian harlots appreciate the finer things in life; Special Brew, fake Chinese fags and The Dole. Most decent BRITISH people do not wish to integrate with such low lifes and filthy scum. Plebs, the lot of them! Disgusting underclass of retards,inbreds,moro ns, ogs & imbeciles. No Suspenders! TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

11:42pm Sat 22 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

PLEASE NOTE:

EDL are NOT Working Class- this is a misnomer!!! EDL do not work! Have never worked, can't work, will NOT work!!!

EDL are a bunch of retards void of empathy, social reasoning, social context, or self awareness, they are subhuman meat-calculators, who live to collect and catalogue items like barcodes, bottletops, and Muzlamic Ray Gunz. Common symptoms within EDL retardedness include having an Irish Cathloic leader of an ENGLISH NATIONALIST movement (pmsl hahahaha!!!) failing at social interaction and empathy, failing at communication, failing at getting a job, failing at life, failing at hygiene, becoming obsessed with a Turkish Saint & a Middle Eastern Messiah & White Power (lol!) and Muzlamics and breaking out into fits of Stress when their strict routines are broken or when they're asked to stop being lazy, self-serving leeches living off the government...oh! and Nazi Conspiracy Theories worse than the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION! You pathetic bunch of MORONS! A laughing stock!!!


SEE YOUTUBE LINK: "Only 15 EDL Make it to Walthamstow Rally Point and One Pi s s e s Himself Before Crowd Surrounds them ."
PLEASE NOTE: EDL are NOT Working Class- this is a misnomer!!! EDL do not work! Have never worked, can't work, will NOT work!!! EDL are a bunch of retards void of empathy, social reasoning, social context, or self awareness, they are subhuman meat-calculators, who live to collect and catalogue items like barcodes, bottletops, and Muzlamic Ray Gunz. Common symptoms within EDL retardedness include having an Irish Cathloic leader of an ENGLISH NATIONALIST movement (pmsl hahahaha!!!) failing at social interaction and empathy, failing at communication, failing at getting a job, failing at life, failing at hygiene, becoming obsessed with a Turkish Saint & a Middle Eastern Messiah & White Power (lol!) and Muzlamics and breaking out into fits of Stress when their strict routines are broken or when they're asked to stop being lazy, self-serving leeches living off the government...oh! and Nazi Conspiracy Theories worse than the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION! You pathetic bunch of MORONS! A laughing stock!!! SEE YOUTUBE LINK: "Only 15 EDL Make it to Walthamstow Rally Point and One Pi s s e s Himself Before Crowd Surrounds them ." TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

3:30am Sun 23 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

Nancy Taaffe wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Nancy Taaffe wrote:
I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.
Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you.

It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently.

I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life?

The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer.

There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers and youth of this borough who came out to "Stop The EDL" on 1st Sept, and I will again. I will argue on here and whatever forum that central to the fighback against austerity and the growth of far rights ideas is the organised working class. I do not support backward idea's whether that is in regards to gay rights, abortion or womens rights in general. I applaud all those young women who marched today on the slutwalk. What the EDL represent is a threat to all of those things and much more and therefore it is totally right that we have a massive show of organised opposition to them on 27th Oct and that central to this movement has to be the local, regional and national trade unions.
I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing- on such policies the far right can gain traction, as they are in Europe.
In neighbourhoods of Athens today there are vicious attacks being carried out on immigrants as the Golden Dawn have not only strengthened their political position but have organised street gangs in poor working class areas, they have done this on the backs of the failure of the establishment politicians to stop austerity.As co-ordination of the anti-cuts union we have organised over 2 years to stop cuts. I have stood as a TUSC candidate both in The General Election and in the GLA and I would like to do so again.
To stop the violence and division we have to stop the EDL on 27th and to stop the misery and alienation we need to stop cuts and improve life for all.
You are still evading the issue of the use of violence, Nancy. This is deliberate, obviously, much to your shame.

You seem to be little different from the leaders of the EDL, who also feel the need to make grand statements but deny that their words and deeds encourage and incite others to commit crimes.

Luckily, after having seen you campaigning for twenty odd years in our community enough local people know enough about you that few people are willing to elect you into any public offices where you would do real damage.

You came 6th in the 2010 elections in Walthamstow. It is your right and privilege to use your freedom of speech to stand at such elections, but do you not think it a little short sighted to advocate prior restraint of people making speeches if it is your own intent to speak in public on behalf of unpopular causes in future?

I am particularly concerned, that you have also been making common cause with others, whoa re also apparently seeking to lead local young people onto a path of violence. These are people who wish to destroy our tolerant and vibrant community in the name of their very extreme version of a highly prescriptive religion. Sharing the streets with these bigots really does cause me to question your sanity. Are you and your colleagues really so poltically lonely you will hang out with just anyone?
[quote][p][bold]Nancy Taaffe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nancy Taaffe[/bold] wrote: I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.[/p][/quote]Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you. It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently. I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life? The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer. There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.[/p][/quote]I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers and youth of this borough who came out to "Stop The EDL" on 1st Sept, and I will again. I will argue on here and whatever forum that central to the fighback against austerity and the growth of far rights ideas is the organised working class. I do not support backward idea's whether that is in regards to gay rights, abortion or womens rights in general. I applaud all those young women who marched today on the slutwalk. What the EDL represent is a threat to all of those things and much more and therefore it is totally right that we have a massive show of organised opposition to them on 27th Oct and that central to this movement has to be the local, regional and national trade unions. I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing- on such policies the far right can gain traction, as they are in Europe. In neighbourhoods of Athens today there are vicious attacks being carried out on immigrants as the Golden Dawn have not only strengthened their political position but have organised street gangs in poor working class areas, they have done this on the backs of the failure of the establishment politicians to stop austerity.As co-ordination of the anti-cuts union we have organised over 2 years to stop cuts. I have stood as a TUSC candidate both in The General Election and in the GLA and I would like to do so again. To stop the violence and division we have to stop the EDL on 27th and to stop the misery and alienation we need to stop cuts and improve life for all.[/p][/quote]You are still evading the issue of the use of violence, Nancy. This is deliberate, obviously, much to your shame. You seem to be little different from the leaders of the EDL, who also feel the need to make grand statements but deny that their words and deeds encourage and incite others to commit crimes. Luckily, after having seen you campaigning for twenty odd years in our community enough local people know enough about you that few people are willing to elect you into any public offices where you would do real damage. You came 6th in the 2010 elections in Walthamstow. It is your right and privilege to use your freedom of speech to stand at such elections, but do you not think it a little short sighted to advocate prior restraint of people making speeches if it is your own intent to speak in public on behalf of unpopular causes in future? I am particularly concerned, that you have also been making common cause with others, whoa re also apparently seeking to lead local young people onto a path of violence. These are people who wish to destroy our tolerant and vibrant community in the name of their very extreme version of a highly prescriptive religion. Sharing the streets with these bigots really does cause me to question your sanity. Are you and your colleagues really so poltically lonely you will hang out with just anyone? Techno3
  • Score: 0

7:38am Sun 23 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

Techno3 wrote:
Nancy Taaffe wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Nancy Taaffe wrote:
I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.
Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you.

It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently.

I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life?

The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer.

There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers and youth of this borough who came out to "Stop The EDL" on 1st Sept, and I will again. I will argue on here and whatever forum that central to the fighback against austerity and the growth of far rights ideas is the organised working class. I do not support backward idea's whether that is in regards to gay rights, abortion or womens rights in general. I applaud all those young women who marched today on the slutwalk. What the EDL represent is a threat to all of those things and much more and therefore it is totally right that we have a massive show of organised opposition to them on 27th Oct and that central to this movement has to be the local, regional and national trade unions.
I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing- on such policies the far right can gain traction, as they are in Europe.
In neighbourhoods of Athens today there are vicious attacks being carried out on immigrants as the Golden Dawn have not only strengthened their political position but have organised street gangs in poor working class areas, they have done this on the backs of the failure of the establishment politicians to stop austerity.As co-ordination of the anti-cuts union we have organised over 2 years to stop cuts. I have stood as a TUSC candidate both in The General Election and in the GLA and I would like to do so again.
To stop the violence and division we have to stop the EDL on 27th and to stop the misery and alienation we need to stop cuts and improve life for all.
You are still evading the issue of the use of violence, Nancy. This is deliberate, obviously, much to your shame.

You seem to be little different from the leaders of the EDL, who also feel the need to make grand statements but deny that their words and deeds encourage and incite others to commit crimes.

Luckily, after having seen you campaigning for twenty odd years in our community enough local people know enough about you that few people are willing to elect you into any public offices where you would do real damage.

You came 6th in the 2010 elections in Walthamstow. It is your right and privilege to use your freedom of speech to stand at such elections, but do you not think it a little short sighted to advocate prior restraint of people making speeches if it is your own intent to speak in public on behalf of unpopular causes in future?

I am particularly concerned, that you have also been making common cause with others, whoa re also apparently seeking to lead local young people onto a path of violence. These are people who wish to destroy our tolerant and vibrant community in the name of their very extreme version of a highly prescriptive religion. Sharing the streets with these bigots really does cause me to question your sanity. Are you and your colleagues really so poltically lonely you will hang out with just anyone?
No evasion- when the far right are organising street gangs then they must be stopped. However I believe that they can be stopped in many ways; the way the RMT members did when they tried to muster at KIngs Cross and were forced to go to Euston, like the way thousands marched and blockaded them and like the way the hundreds of youth did in taking up the labour movement slogan of " No Platform for fascists " literally- they can be stopped in many ways.
If you want a proper story about what it's like to be really lonely read the book " Alone in Berlin" . This book will give you a taste of what it's like when people like the EDL have triumphed and opposition is fragmented and weak - history has taught us that we must stop them at their inception.
On the snipes about TUSC- we stood, we stand and we will stand again against ALL CUTS. We will do that because this fight is integral to cutting across the rise of far right ideas.
My "common cause" is with anti- fascism- so should yours be.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nancy Taaffe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nancy Taaffe[/bold] wrote: I am a part of WRWF....I have been from the beginning.I have argued, just like my last post said, that the trade unions should be central to the fight against the EDL- just like they are the main defenders of gay rights, abortion and anti- racist ideas. I spoke about the marvellous role played by ordinary men and women down at Kings Cross who stopped the EDL mustering.This is a good example of the type of action we need to unite the whole community against racist and facist ideas that threaten ALL of us. We will witness the progressive and unifying role of the trade unions on 20th Oct and I believe that this is the spirit around which we should unify on 27th Oct.[/p][/quote]Nancy, I see you provide a politician's evasion of the questions I have asked of you. It is a pity you are not prepared to take the opportunity to denounce the use of violence, especially as you claim to be part of WAWF, even if your fellow SWP members of that organisation treated you and your colleagues with considerable disrespect recently. I am less surprised (than I'd have expected from your evasive reply alone) to see therefore that you are unwilling to apply your intellect to the difficult issue of asking people to march alongside the kinds of people who would really want to persecute you, and them, if they had the chance. Do you really think any sane person would want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the bigotted advocates of a religion which wishes to undermine every pleasant feature of our local life? The description of the kinds of violent behaviour we saw on 1st September (directed not just at the EDL but also, at times, at the police) as 'progressive', I can only, assume, is an endorsement of it. If that is really your considered opinion, I can only say you are wrong. Violence is not the answer. There is also nothing progressive about allying yourself with the SWP or with the nasty advocates of shariah law. Simply labelling something as 'progressive' does not make it so.[/p][/quote]I stand shoulder to shoulder with the workers and youth of this borough who came out to "Stop The EDL" on 1st Sept, and I will again. I will argue on here and whatever forum that central to the fighback against austerity and the growth of far rights ideas is the organised working class. I do not support backward idea's whether that is in regards to gay rights, abortion or womens rights in general. I applaud all those young women who marched today on the slutwalk. What the EDL represent is a threat to all of those things and much more and therefore it is totally right that we have a massive show of organised opposition to them on 27th Oct and that central to this movement has to be the local, regional and national trade unions. I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing- on such policies the far right can gain traction, as they are in Europe. In neighbourhoods of Athens today there are vicious attacks being carried out on immigrants as the Golden Dawn have not only strengthened their political position but have organised street gangs in poor working class areas, they have done this on the backs of the failure of the establishment politicians to stop austerity.As co-ordination of the anti-cuts union we have organised over 2 years to stop cuts. I have stood as a TUSC candidate both in The General Election and in the GLA and I would like to do so again. To stop the violence and division we have to stop the EDL on 27th and to stop the misery and alienation we need to stop cuts and improve life for all.[/p][/quote]You are still evading the issue of the use of violence, Nancy. This is deliberate, obviously, much to your shame. You seem to be little different from the leaders of the EDL, who also feel the need to make grand statements but deny that their words and deeds encourage and incite others to commit crimes. Luckily, after having seen you campaigning for twenty odd years in our community enough local people know enough about you that few people are willing to elect you into any public offices where you would do real damage. You came 6th in the 2010 elections in Walthamstow. It is your right and privilege to use your freedom of speech to stand at such elections, but do you not think it a little short sighted to advocate prior restraint of people making speeches if it is your own intent to speak in public on behalf of unpopular causes in future? I am particularly concerned, that you have also been making common cause with others, whoa re also apparently seeking to lead local young people onto a path of violence. These are people who wish to destroy our tolerant and vibrant community in the name of their very extreme version of a highly prescriptive religion. Sharing the streets with these bigots really does cause me to question your sanity. Are you and your colleagues really so poltically lonely you will hang out with just anyone?[/p][/quote]No evasion- when the far right are organising street gangs then they must be stopped. However I believe that they can be stopped in many ways; the way the RMT members did when they tried to muster at KIngs Cross and were forced to go to Euston, like the way thousands marched and blockaded them and like the way the hundreds of youth did in taking up the labour movement slogan of " No Platform for fascists " literally- they can be stopped in many ways. If you want a proper story about what it's like to be really lonely read the book " Alone in Berlin" . This book will give you a taste of what it's like when people like the EDL have triumphed and opposition is fragmented and weak - history has taught us that we must stop them at their inception. On the snipes about TUSC- we stood, we stand and we will stand again against ALL CUTS. We will do that because this fight is integral to cutting across the rise of far right ideas. My "common cause" is with anti- fascism- so should yours be. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

You are a fool. The people you have allied yourself with are as nasty and authoritarian as anyone in the EDL will ever turn out to be.

Having conceded the principle that there is to be no such thing as free speech; the only issue left is who will it be who gets to decide in future when to shut you up.

Should that be a policeman? I have greater faith in the police do do not think that is really their job. You do not seem to have much faith in the police or you would trust them to keep the EDL's conduct within the law.

Or should it be our corrupted and unprincipled council? If I understand some of your public utterances, you are said to have clained they sacked you for being an active trade unionist. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do remember watching them paying security staff to keep an eye on you and your colleagues when they were trying to keep your party out of the Town Square only two years ago?

Or should you leave the decision to your fake allies the islamic fundamentalists? Some of this ilk have been even more recently than the council been trying to set up road blocks in Leyton to harrass women whose clothes or conduct they disapprove of.

I don't need to read about intolerance and authoritarianism in history books, though i do enjoy a good read now and again. I can see the early stages of a potential human rights disaster being played out in our own borough with you playing the part of the useful idiots busily ushering it in.
You are a fool. The people you have allied yourself with are as nasty and authoritarian as anyone in the EDL will ever turn out to be. Having conceded the principle that there is to be no such thing as free speech; the only issue left is who will it be who gets to decide in future when to shut you up. Should that be a policeman? I have greater faith in the police do do not think that is really their job. You do not seem to have much faith in the police or you would trust them to keep the EDL's conduct within the law. Or should it be our corrupted and unprincipled council? If I understand some of your public utterances, you are said to have clained they sacked you for being an active trade unionist. I have no idea if that is true or not, but I do remember watching them paying security staff to keep an eye on you and your colleagues when they were trying to keep your party out of the Town Square only two years ago? Or should you leave the decision to your fake allies the islamic fundamentalists? Some of this ilk have been even more recently than the council been trying to set up road blocks in Leyton to harrass women whose clothes or conduct they disapprove of. I don't need to read about intolerance and authoritarianism in history books, though i do enjoy a good read now and again. I can see the early stages of a potential human rights disaster being played out in our own borough with you playing the part of the useful idiots busily ushering it in. Techno3
  • Score: 0

12:37pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Richard Puller says...

`Tommy IRA` you couldnt make it up. Is there any stereotype you havent used?

Seriously, you have brought this second EDL march upon yourselves. I if the original one had been facilitated and policed properly the EDL would have been in and out of WF with a minimum of fuss. Unfortunately due to a combination of politicized policing and left wing violence the EDL were deprived of their right to peaceful protest and kettled for hours by the cops and deprived of their human rights. Thats why the EDL are coming back to Walthamstow and I,m sure they will keep coming back until they get the demonstration they are lawfully entitled to. Your call........
`Tommy IRA` you couldnt make it up. Is there any stereotype you havent used? Seriously, you have brought this second EDL march upon yourselves. I if the original one had been facilitated and policed properly the EDL would have been in and out of WF with a minimum of fuss. Unfortunately due to a combination of politicized policing and left wing violence the EDL were deprived of their right to peaceful protest and kettled for hours by the cops and deprived of their human rights. Thats why the EDL are coming back to Walthamstow and I,m sure they will keep coming back until they get the demonstration they are lawfully entitled to. Your call........ Richard Puller
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

Oh diddums. The racists and fascists of the EDL got turned over in Walthamstow and now want to claim victim status. You don't have to make it up - they do it for you. Whose streets ? Our Streets !
Oh diddums. The racists and fascists of the EDL got turned over in Walthamstow and now want to claim victim status. You don't have to make it up - they do it for you. Whose streets ? Our Streets ! Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

Lot of abstract talk about freedom of speech on here. Take a look below at 'site terms' Sec. 12. Para 3. Got any problem with that ? I don't. Racists and Fascists do.
Lot of abstract talk about freedom of speech on here. Take a look below at 'site terms' Sec. 12. Para 3. Got any problem with that ? I don't. Racists and Fascists do. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

2:58pm Sun 23 Sep 12

mdj says...

'I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing'
I agree, Nancy, on this at least: what do you think of the fact that in this borough this has for years been the handiwork of a party that was created by the Trades Union movement, and at the present time is led by a career TU official?
Do you agree that no cuts would have been needed in this borough had it been managed with the most rudimentary competence for the last 25 years? I could give you chapter and verse, simply by quoting stories from this paper.
'I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing' I agree, Nancy, on this at least: what do you think of the fact that in this borough this has for years been the handiwork of a party that was created by the Trades Union movement, and at the present time is led by a career TU official? Do you agree that no cuts would have been needed in this borough had it been managed with the most rudimentary competence for the last 25 years? I could give you chapter and verse, simply by quoting stories from this paper. mdj
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

Dangermouse1 wrote:
Lot of abstract talk about freedom of speech on here. Take a look below at 'site terms' Sec. 12. Para 3. Got any problem with that ? I don't. Racists and Fascists do.
This newspaper, being a private entity, but also a publication, has its policies, which I think most civilised people accept.

People may well suspect, as do I, that if they are allowed to speak publicly, some things said by some people in the EDL may at some time in the future turn out to fall foul of the law. But that suspicion is not, in itself, enough to prevent a person from ever being allowed to say anything in public at all. (Not even the IRA, when they were bombing us, were ever completely gagged.)

For all we know, had the EDL speakers been allowed to address their supporters on 1st September, they would have explained how great it is to be English (not an offence, as yet, as far as i am aware), or how much they enjoy healthy walks, admire the hospitality of our borough and the magnificent architecture of our Town Hall. Who knows?

(Or they could, I fuly accept, have said some things which are not repeatable in a family newspaper. If so, and the uttereance of the words used amounted to some criminal act, such as incitement to commit a crime, then I would expect the police to have acted on the evidence accordingly.)

However. We will never know. This is because on 1 September, the police failed to keep the two sides apart, failed to enable the EDL supporters to get to the agreed venue for their meeting and even stood by while some violent thugs, who were not supposed to be there, threw rocks, bottles and sticks at the EDL speakers. The EDL can, if they wish, pretend now to be victims of some kind.

Personally, I think the politics of victimhood are to be despised. A group's opinions are no more or less valid or reasonable per se because they have endured pain of some kind than if they have not endured paid, just as a group which inflicts pain and violence on others is no more correct because it is willing to use violence rather than reason and evidence to get its point of view over.

But the potential damage done to the rule of law and to freedom of speech and the fundamental right of freedom of assembly by the events of 1st September should not be underestimated. People campaigning against these fundamental rights rather than in favour of them should be ashamed of themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: Lot of abstract talk about freedom of speech on here. Take a look below at 'site terms' Sec. 12. Para 3. Got any problem with that ? I don't. Racists and Fascists do.[/p][/quote]This newspaper, being a private entity, but also a publication, has its policies, which I think most civilised people accept. People may well suspect, as do I, that if they are allowed to speak publicly, some things said by some people in the EDL may at some time in the future turn out to fall foul of the law. But that suspicion is not, in itself, enough to prevent a person from ever being allowed to say anything in public at all. (Not even the IRA, when they were bombing us, were ever completely gagged.) For all we know, had the EDL speakers been allowed to address their supporters on 1st September, they would have explained how great it is to be English (not an offence, as yet, as far as i am aware), or how much they enjoy healthy walks, admire the hospitality of our borough and the magnificent architecture of our Town Hall. Who knows? (Or they could, I fuly accept, have said some things which are not repeatable in a family newspaper. If so, and the uttereance of the words used amounted to some criminal act, such as incitement to commit a crime, then I would expect the police to have acted on the evidence accordingly.) However. We will never know. This is because on 1 September, the police failed to keep the two sides apart, failed to enable the EDL supporters to get to the agreed venue for their meeting and even stood by while some violent thugs, who were not supposed to be there, threw rocks, bottles and sticks at the EDL speakers. The EDL can, if they wish, pretend now to be victims of some kind. Personally, I think the politics of victimhood are to be despised. A group's opinions are no more or less valid or reasonable per se because they have endured pain of some kind than if they have not endured paid, just as a group which inflicts pain and violence on others is no more correct because it is willing to use violence rather than reason and evidence to get its point of view over. But the potential damage done to the rule of law and to freedom of speech and the fundamental right of freedom of assembly by the events of 1st September should not be underestimated. People campaigning against these fundamental rights rather than in favour of them should be ashamed of themselves. Techno3
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@Techno: Just for the record: Robinson
etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police.
Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.
@Techno: Just for the record: Robinson etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police. Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Techno: Just for the record: Robinson
etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police.
Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.
I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable.

I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not.

Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand.

I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.)

The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject.

The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame.

There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.
[quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Techno: Just for the record: Robinson etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police. Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.[/p][/quote]I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable. I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not. Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand. I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.) The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject. The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame. There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans. Techno3
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Sun 23 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Techno3 wrote:
Dangermouse1 wrote:
Lot of abstract talk about freedom of speech on here. Take a look below at 'site terms' Sec. 12. Para 3. Got any problem with that ? I don't. Racists and Fascists do.
This newspaper, being a private entity, but also a publication, has its policies, which I think most civilised people accept.

People may well suspect, as do I, that if they are allowed to speak publicly, some things said by some people in the EDL may at some time in the future turn out to fall foul of the law. But that suspicion is not, in itself, enough to prevent a person from ever being allowed to say anything in public at all. (Not even the IRA, when they were bombing us, were ever completely gagged.)

For all we know, had the EDL speakers been allowed to address their supporters on 1st September, they would have explained how great it is to be English (not an offence, as yet, as far as i am aware), or how much they enjoy healthy walks, admire the hospitality of our borough and the magnificent architecture of our Town Hall. Who knows?

(Or they could, I fuly accept, have said some things which are not repeatable in a family newspaper. If so, and the uttereance of the words used amounted to some criminal act, such as incitement to commit a crime, then I would expect the police to have acted on the evidence accordingly.)

However. We will never know. This is because on 1 September, the police failed to keep the two sides apart, failed to enable the EDL supporters to get to the agreed venue for their meeting and even stood by while some violent thugs, who were not supposed to be there, threw rocks, bottles and sticks at the EDL speakers. The EDL can, if they wish, pretend now to be victims of some kind.

Personally, I think the politics of victimhood are to be despised. A group's opinions are no more or less valid or reasonable per se because they have endured pain of some kind than if they have not endured paid, just as a group which inflicts pain and violence on others is no more correct because it is willing to use violence rather than reason and evidence to get its point of view over.

But the potential damage done to the rule of law and to freedom of speech and the fundamental right of freedom of assembly by the events of 1st September should not be underestimated. People campaigning against these fundamental rights rather than in favour of them should be ashamed of themselves.
People acting as a sop to a Fascist organisation should be ashamed of themselves. People who bandy around Freedom of speech arguments to back up their case as you seem to be doing Techno should also make sure they actually understand the laws of this country before claiming they will be damaged.

The freedom of speech does not in this country extend to the right to make statements which are are considered "Hate Speech".

In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:
A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

So one only has to look at the banners or indeed at the many videos online of the marchers in places such as Euston Station to see that the EDL marchers are guilty of multiple infringements of the above.

So why should they be allowed to come to Walthamstow to break the law exactly?

You write very long diatribes but your entire "freedom of speech" article is built on very poor foundations. There is freedom of speech but not freedom to incite hatred. That goes for both sides in this. But then only one side is organising a march.

So the only damage to law here would be through the march being allowed.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: Lot of abstract talk about freedom of speech on here. Take a look below at 'site terms' Sec. 12. Para 3. Got any problem with that ? I don't. Racists and Fascists do.[/p][/quote]This newspaper, being a private entity, but also a publication, has its policies, which I think most civilised people accept. People may well suspect, as do I, that if they are allowed to speak publicly, some things said by some people in the EDL may at some time in the future turn out to fall foul of the law. But that suspicion is not, in itself, enough to prevent a person from ever being allowed to say anything in public at all. (Not even the IRA, when they were bombing us, were ever completely gagged.) For all we know, had the EDL speakers been allowed to address their supporters on 1st September, they would have explained how great it is to be English (not an offence, as yet, as far as i am aware), or how much they enjoy healthy walks, admire the hospitality of our borough and the magnificent architecture of our Town Hall. Who knows? (Or they could, I fuly accept, have said some things which are not repeatable in a family newspaper. If so, and the uttereance of the words used amounted to some criminal act, such as incitement to commit a crime, then I would expect the police to have acted on the evidence accordingly.) However. We will never know. This is because on 1 September, the police failed to keep the two sides apart, failed to enable the EDL supporters to get to the agreed venue for their meeting and even stood by while some violent thugs, who were not supposed to be there, threw rocks, bottles and sticks at the EDL speakers. The EDL can, if they wish, pretend now to be victims of some kind. Personally, I think the politics of victimhood are to be despised. A group's opinions are no more or less valid or reasonable per se because they have endured pain of some kind than if they have not endured paid, just as a group which inflicts pain and violence on others is no more correct because it is willing to use violence rather than reason and evidence to get its point of view over. But the potential damage done to the rule of law and to freedom of speech and the fundamental right of freedom of assembly by the events of 1st September should not be underestimated. People campaigning against these fundamental rights rather than in favour of them should be ashamed of themselves.[/p][/quote]People acting as a sop to a Fascist organisation should be ashamed of themselves. People who bandy around Freedom of speech arguments to back up their case as you seem to be doing Techno should also make sure they actually understand the laws of this country before claiming they will be damaged. The freedom of speech does not in this country extend to the right to make statements which are are considered "Hate Speech". In England, Wales, and Scotland, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says: A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby. So one only has to look at the banners or indeed at the many videos online of the marchers in places such as Euston Station to see that the EDL marchers are guilty of multiple infringements of the above. So why should they be allowed to come to Walthamstow to break the law exactly? You write very long diatribes but your entire "freedom of speech" article is built on very poor foundations. There is freedom of speech but not freedom to incite hatred. That goes for both sides in this. But then only one side is organising a march. So the only damage to law here would be through the march being allowed. E17_er
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Sun 23 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Techno3 wrote:
Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Techno: Just for the record: Robinson
etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police.
Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.
I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable.

I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not.

Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand.

I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.)

The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject.

The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame.

There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.
I think you left out a few parts of the Declaration of Human Rights..

E.g.

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

So they do have to obey the law which their hate speeches and banners fail to do.

Or how about...

Everyone has the right to freedom of "peaceful" assembly and association.

Yet to see any peaceful assemblies by the EDL. They were not being peaceful before they even got here to Walthamstow as evidenced by the videos easily available so you can't keep blaming the other side.

The multiple calls by the EDL for people to join coming "tooled" up suggest anything but a desire for peaceful assembly.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Techno: Just for the record: Robinson etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police. Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.[/p][/quote]I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable. I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not. Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand. I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.) The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject. The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame. There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.[/p][/quote]I think you left out a few parts of the Declaration of Human Rights.. E.g. "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." So they do have to obey the law which their hate speeches and banners fail to do. Or how about... Everyone has the right to freedom of "peaceful" assembly and association. Yet to see any peaceful assemblies by the EDL. They were not being peaceful before they even got here to Walthamstow as evidenced by the videos easily available so you can't keep blaming the other side. The multiple calls by the EDL for people to join coming "tooled" up suggest anything but a desire for peaceful assembly. E17_er
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Techno: Just for the record: Robinson
etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police.
Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.
I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable.

I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not.

Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand.

I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.)

The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject.

The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame.

There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.
I think you left out a few parts of the Declaration of Human Rights..

E.g.

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

So they do have to obey the law which their hate speeches and banners fail to do.

Or how about...

Everyone has the right to freedom of "peaceful" assembly and association.

Yet to see any peaceful assemblies by the EDL. They were not being peaceful before they even got here to Walthamstow as evidenced by the videos easily available so you can't keep blaming the other side.

The multiple calls by the EDL for people to join coming "tooled" up suggest anything but a desire for peaceful assembly.
In the event that the EDL, or the UAF for that matter, abuse their rights to assemble and express themselves lawfully, they should be subject to the full force of the law, not a hail of bricks bottles and sticks frmo the out of control supporters of a rival faction.
[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Techno: Just for the record: Robinson etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police. Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.[/p][/quote]I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable. I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not. Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand. I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.) The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject. The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame. There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.[/p][/quote]I think you left out a few parts of the Declaration of Human Rights.. E.g. "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." So they do have to obey the law which their hate speeches and banners fail to do. Or how about... Everyone has the right to freedom of "peaceful" assembly and association. Yet to see any peaceful assemblies by the EDL. They were not being peaceful before they even got here to Walthamstow as evidenced by the videos easily available so you can't keep blaming the other side. The multiple calls by the EDL for people to join coming "tooled" up suggest anything but a desire for peaceful assembly.[/p][/quote]In the event that the EDL, or the UAF for that matter, abuse their rights to assemble and express themselves lawfully, they should be subject to the full force of the law, not a hail of bricks bottles and sticks frmo the out of control supporters of a rival faction. Techno3
  • Score: 0

4:57pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@Techno: Yes I am laughing. It wasn't a few missiles that stopped the EDL march/rally. It was 4000 local people on the streets. 1 bottle. 1 cobble stone, 1 beer bottle, 1 wine bottle, a few sticks, eggs,a plastic container, a pot plant, and a cuddly toy ! Yes I was there.
Hardly the Somme was it now ? Go cry and bleat elsewhere.
@Techno: Yes I am laughing. It wasn't a few missiles that stopped the EDL march/rally. It was 4000 local people on the streets. 1 bottle. 1 cobble stone, 1 beer bottle, 1 wine bottle, a few sticks, eggs,a plastic container, a pot plant, and a cuddly toy ! Yes I was there. Hardly the Somme was it now ? Go cry and bleat elsewhere. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Sun 23 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Techno3 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Techno: Just for the record: Robinson
etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police.
Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.
I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable.

I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not.

Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand.

I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.)

The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"

You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject.

The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame.

There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.
I think you left out a few parts of the Declaration of Human Rights..

E.g.

"In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

So they do have to obey the law which their hate speeches and banners fail to do.

Or how about...

Everyone has the right to freedom of "peaceful" assembly and association.

Yet to see any peaceful assemblies by the EDL. They were not being peaceful before they even got here to Walthamstow as evidenced by the videos easily available so you can't keep blaming the other side.

The multiple calls by the EDL for people to join coming "tooled" up suggest anything but a desire for peaceful assembly.
In the event that the EDL, or the UAF for that matter, abuse their rights to assemble and express themselves lawfully, they should be subject to the full force of the law, not a hail of bricks bottles and sticks frmo the out of control supporters of a rival faction.
Explain to me exactly how an organisation that encourages hatred of another religion can ever operate in any way other than to break the laws on hate speech?

You really do need to stop apologising for them. You seem to spend more time attacking the people on here that find their hatred abhorrent and against basic human rights. (All of them not just the ones you cherry pick!)
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Techno: Just for the record: Robinson etc were given the opportunity to address the assembled racists and fascists of the EDL, who were just around the corner from him, but he declined, instead arguing bitterly amongst themselves and with the police. Robinson chose to address and goad the opposition until the EDL demo went beyond the agreed time. This all resulted from opposition to racism and Fascism and not your abstract proclamations about opposing 'freedom'.[/p][/quote]I am aware that the EDL speakers, gave up trying to speak in front of the Town Hall and that this was because the police had failed to permit his prospective audience to walk to the agreed venue for their meeting at all, let alone within the agreed timetable. I have no idea if anyone in the Met has been held to account for that or not. Mr Robinson eventually declined to address his followers other than briefly from a police van. I can't speak for him, nor would I wish to. He has made some statements on youtube I understand. I am aware that his decision was taken after he'd come under a hail of missiles from people who the police specifically told him they were unable to protect him from. The police also said that for their own safety were unwilling to make any immediate arrests. (The film of those discussions was also on you tube when I last looked.) The freedoms we are discussing are human rights which are considered fundamental and 'inalienable' ones by the United Nations. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers" You can laugh at this idea if you wish, but the fact is that WAWF do not know better than the rest of the planet, no matter how much they may want to think that their sloganising and the use of violence amounts to the final word on this subject. The use of flying half bricks, bottles and sticks is a terrible indictment of the intellectual qualities of WAWF's leadership. The organisers of the counter demonstration should be hanging their heads in shame. There was no need for such violence, which was purely mindless thuggery. People who applaud it should be ashamed of themselves: they have brought themselves and their followers down to the level of football hooligans.[/p][/quote]I think you left out a few parts of the Declaration of Human Rights.. E.g. "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." So they do have to obey the law which their hate speeches and banners fail to do. Or how about... Everyone has the right to freedom of "peaceful" assembly and association. Yet to see any peaceful assemblies by the EDL. They were not being peaceful before they even got here to Walthamstow as evidenced by the videos easily available so you can't keep blaming the other side. The multiple calls by the EDL for people to join coming "tooled" up suggest anything but a desire for peaceful assembly.[/p][/quote]In the event that the EDL, or the UAF for that matter, abuse their rights to assemble and express themselves lawfully, they should be subject to the full force of the law, not a hail of bricks bottles and sticks frmo the out of control supporters of a rival faction.[/p][/quote]Explain to me exactly how an organisation that encourages hatred of another religion can ever operate in any way other than to break the laws on hate speech? You really do need to stop apologising for them. You seem to spend more time attacking the people on here that find their hatred abhorrent and against basic human rights. (All of them not just the ones you cherry pick!) E17_er
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@E17: Well said.
@E17: Well said. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

How strange. Seems to be no obvious EDL support on here. Just self proclaimed 'pacifists' and 'human rights' activists defending the racists and Fascists of the EDL.
How strange. Seems to be no obvious EDL support on here. Just self proclaimed 'pacifists' and 'human rights' activists defending the racists and Fascists of the EDL. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dinamarie says...

E17_er wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?
Why not send them the date and time of the next one of these events so they can.
If it wasn't for the muslim, sorry, Asian thugs ATTACKING the EDL for using their freedom of speech and right to demonstrate against the islamisation of their neighbourhoods, helped along by the politicians, - the police would not need to be out there in the masses they are - think about that ! - Speeches don't hurt anybody, bottles and stones does!
If it wasn't for these thugs, sneaking Shariah into the neighbourhoods, there would be no need for these demonstrations FOR democracy, against Sharia, which is totally anti-democratic - When will the media start telling the truth about Islam, instead of smearing the people, who peacefully dare standing up for their rights, against thugs, that want to shut them up with stones, bottles etc. - IT is NEVER the EDL that STARTS the riots! So why are they the ones being called violent - Tommy has been beaten up in the streets of Luton, his home town, for speaking his mind - and HE is being called violent!????
You people are living in England, not in Gaza or Egypt, where this behaviour is accepted. Attacks on embassies - killing of Christians in the name of Islam! That's fine.... in a Muslim country - not in Europe!
All those "lefties" who stand together with muslim thugs now, will be the first to go, once this socalled religion take over - and it will, if noone speaks up, like EDL!
Already muslim women have less rights than other English born women -
EDL stands for upholding human rights for all - they are NOT racists - they stand for democracy - against Sharia and a totalititarian ideology - When will the media educate themselves about Islam instead of tolerating and defending this intolerant ideology - that straight up tells everybody, that some day they will rule the whole world!
Noone believed Hitler, when he made speeches about the German "Herrenvolk" -
The nazi-mentality is back - this time it is called Islam!
Some cities all over Europe has started to look like Iran, with "religious" policing -
If that is the way you all want to live, move to an Islamic state! - But if you want to continue living in a democratic society, you should stand up for organisations like EDL - and not twist the truth and defending the true Thugs!
[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?[/p][/quote]Why not send them the date and time of the next one of these events so they can.[/p][/quote]If it wasn't for the muslim, sorry, Asian thugs ATTACKING the EDL for using their freedom of speech and right to demonstrate against the islamisation of their neighbourhoods, helped along by the politicians, - the police would not need to be out there in the masses they are - think about that ! - Speeches don't hurt anybody, bottles and stones does! If it wasn't for these thugs, sneaking Shariah into the neighbourhoods, there would be no need for these demonstrations FOR democracy, against Sharia, which is totally anti-democratic - When will the media start telling the truth about Islam, instead of smearing the people, who peacefully dare standing up for their rights, against thugs, that want to shut them up with stones, bottles etc. - IT is NEVER the EDL that STARTS the riots! So why are they the ones being called violent - Tommy has been beaten up in the streets of Luton, his home town, for speaking his mind - and HE is being called violent!???? You people are living in England, not in Gaza or Egypt, where this behaviour is accepted. Attacks on embassies - killing of Christians in the name of Islam! That's fine.... in a Muslim country - not in Europe! All those "lefties" who stand together with muslim thugs now, will be the first to go, once this socalled religion take over - and it will, if noone speaks up, like EDL! Already muslim women have less rights than other English born women - EDL stands for upholding human rights for all - they are NOT racists - they stand for democracy - against Sharia and a totalititarian ideology - When will the media educate themselves about Islam instead of tolerating and defending this intolerant ideology - that straight up tells everybody, that some day they will rule the whole world! Noone believed Hitler, when he made speeches about the German "Herrenvolk" - The nazi-mentality is back - this time it is called Islam! Some cities all over Europe has started to look like Iran, with "religious" policing - If that is the way you all want to live, move to an Islamic state! - But if you want to continue living in a democratic society, you should stand up for organisations like EDL - and not twist the truth and defending the true Thugs! Dinamarie
  • Score: 0

5:56pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

mdj wrote:
'I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing'
I agree, Nancy, on this at least: what do you think of the fact that in this borough this has for years been the handiwork of a party that was created by the Trades Union movement, and at the present time is led by a career TU official?
Do you agree that no cuts would have been needed in this borough had it been managed with the most rudimentary competence for the last 25 years? I could give you chapter and verse, simply by quoting stories from this paper.
I do think that council didn't have to make cuts, I campaigned against cuts long before I lost my job along with hundreds of others. I believe that Labour no longer represents working class people and,as Ed Balls demonstrated down at the TUC conference, they will cut just like Tories.
I think no cuts are needed because there is £800 billion in the banks and, as I said at the anti-edl rally, we want it back .
Richmond Council is voting to not implement new planning laws and rebelling and yet when I put that to our labour councillors and to Stella Creasy they wouldn't. Why??? Because they are career politicians who think the people of this borough don't have an alternative. I've stood and will stand because we must create an alternative to years of austerity and cuts.
I worked for this borough for 10 years so you don't have to tell me what went on, I know. Not only did I know but I campaigned against it and I think that played more than a little part in me losing my job. Most of my colleagues think the same.
[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote: 'I condemn all politicians who are making life harder for the people of this borough by cutting, privatising and outsourcing' I agree, Nancy, on this at least: what do you think of the fact that in this borough this has for years been the handiwork of a party that was created by the Trades Union movement, and at the present time is led by a career TU official? Do you agree that no cuts would have been needed in this borough had it been managed with the most rudimentary competence for the last 25 years? I could give you chapter and verse, simply by quoting stories from this paper.[/p][/quote]I do think that council didn't have to make cuts, I campaigned against cuts long before I lost my job along with hundreds of others. I believe that Labour no longer represents working class people and,as Ed Balls demonstrated down at the TUC conference, they will cut just like Tories. I think no cuts are needed because there is £800 billion in the banks and, as I said at the anti-edl rally, we want it back . Richmond Council is voting to not implement new planning laws and rebelling and yet when I put that to our labour councillors and to Stella Creasy they wouldn't. Why??? Because they are career politicians who think the people of this borough don't have an alternative. I've stood and will stand because we must create an alternative to years of austerity and cuts. I worked for this borough for 10 years so you don't have to tell me what went on, I know. Not only did I know but I campaigned against it and I think that played more than a little part in me losing my job. Most of my colleagues think the same. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?
@Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ? Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dinamarie says...

Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?
The reality planet - that objects to something like this: http://thebodyoftrut
h.wordpress.com/2012
/09/23/uk-graveyard-
graffiti-bomb-englan
d-free-palestine-and
-white-people-die-in
-hell/ -
and this is the mentality EDL fights against -
[quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?[/p][/quote]The reality planet - that objects to something like this: http://thebodyoftrut h.wordpress.com/2012 /09/23/uk-graveyard- graffiti-bomb-englan d-free-palestine-and -white-people-die-in -hell/ - and this is the mentality EDL fights against - Dinamarie
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Sun 23 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Dinamarie wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Cornbeefur wrote:
Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?
Why not send them the date and time of the next one of these events so they can.
If it wasn't for the muslim, sorry, Asian thugs ATTACKING the EDL for using their freedom of speech and right to demonstrate against the islamisation of their neighbourhoods, helped along by the politicians, - the police would not need to be out there in the masses they are - think about that ! - Speeches don't hurt anybody, bottles and stones does!
If it wasn't for these thugs, sneaking Shariah into the neighbourhoods, there would be no need for these demonstrations FOR democracy, against Sharia, which is totally anti-democratic - When will the media start telling the truth about Islam, instead of smearing the people, who peacefully dare standing up for their rights, against thugs, that want to shut them up with stones, bottles etc. - IT is NEVER the EDL that STARTS the riots! So why are they the ones being called violent - Tommy has been beaten up in the streets of Luton, his home town, for speaking his mind - and HE is being called violent!????
You people are living in England, not in Gaza or Egypt, where this behaviour is accepted. Attacks on embassies - killing of Christians in the name of Islam! That's fine.... in a Muslim country - not in Europe!
All those "lefties" who stand together with muslim thugs now, will be the first to go, once this socalled religion take over - and it will, if noone speaks up, like EDL!
Already muslim women have less rights than other English born women -
EDL stands for upholding human rights for all - they are NOT racists - they stand for democracy - against Sharia and a totalititarian ideology - When will the media educate themselves about Islam instead of tolerating and defending this intolerant ideology - that straight up tells everybody, that some day they will rule the whole world!
Noone believed Hitler, when he made speeches about the German "Herrenvolk" -
The nazi-mentality is back - this time it is called Islam!
Some cities all over Europe has started to look like Iran, with "religious" policing -
If that is the way you all want to live, move to an Islamic state! - But if you want to continue living in a democratic society, you should stand up for organisations like EDL - and not twist the truth and defending the true Thugs!
I do live in a democratic society. One that has enacted a number of laws which make the doctrine of Sharia law illegal here along with the fascist doctrine of the EDL.

Because I stand for democracy I would never stand with the EDL and their bilious hatred. I am a humanist. Don't see a lot of cases of rampaging drunken humanists.
[quote][p][bold]Dinamarie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote: Can the Guardian and Council also Campaign to Ban the extremists who call for the 'Death of British Troops', burn flags and advocate the introduction of Shira Law into the United Kingdom please?[/p][/quote]Why not send them the date and time of the next one of these events so they can.[/p][/quote]If it wasn't for the muslim, sorry, Asian thugs ATTACKING the EDL for using their freedom of speech and right to demonstrate against the islamisation of their neighbourhoods, helped along by the politicians, - the police would not need to be out there in the masses they are - think about that ! - Speeches don't hurt anybody, bottles and stones does! If it wasn't for these thugs, sneaking Shariah into the neighbourhoods, there would be no need for these demonstrations FOR democracy, against Sharia, which is totally anti-democratic - When will the media start telling the truth about Islam, instead of smearing the people, who peacefully dare standing up for their rights, against thugs, that want to shut them up with stones, bottles etc. - IT is NEVER the EDL that STARTS the riots! So why are they the ones being called violent - Tommy has been beaten up in the streets of Luton, his home town, for speaking his mind - and HE is being called violent!???? You people are living in England, not in Gaza or Egypt, where this behaviour is accepted. Attacks on embassies - killing of Christians in the name of Islam! That's fine.... in a Muslim country - not in Europe! All those "lefties" who stand together with muslim thugs now, will be the first to go, once this socalled religion take over - and it will, if noone speaks up, like EDL! Already muslim women have less rights than other English born women - EDL stands for upholding human rights for all - they are NOT racists - they stand for democracy - against Sharia and a totalititarian ideology - When will the media educate themselves about Islam instead of tolerating and defending this intolerant ideology - that straight up tells everybody, that some day they will rule the whole world! Noone believed Hitler, when he made speeches about the German "Herrenvolk" - The nazi-mentality is back - this time it is called Islam! Some cities all over Europe has started to look like Iran, with "religious" policing - If that is the way you all want to live, move to an Islamic state! - But if you want to continue living in a democratic society, you should stand up for organisations like EDL - and not twist the truth and defending the true Thugs![/p][/quote]I do live in a democratic society. One that has enacted a number of laws which make the doctrine of Sharia law illegal here along with the fascist doctrine of the EDL. Because I stand for democracy I would never stand with the EDL and their bilious hatred. I am a humanist. Don't see a lot of cases of rampaging drunken humanists. E17_er
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

I can't bear opportunist/self promoters. EDL use them to the max. Good job there is none on here. x
I can't bear opportunist/self promoters. EDL use them to the max. Good job there is none on here. x Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dinamarie says...

Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?
Do yourself a favour and check these speeches out - maybe you'll learn something - http://www.youtube.c
om/results?search_qu
ery=Stop+Islamizatio
n+of+Nations%27+Inte
rnational+Freedom+Co
ngress&oq=Stop+Islam
ization+of+Nations%2
7+International+Free
dom+Congress&gs_l=yo
utube-reduced.12...1
6142.16142.0.18920.1
.1.0.0.0.0.1303.1303
.7-1.1.0...0.0...1ac
.2.3CUPoQesEdQ

Kevin Carroll, Cliff Kincaid and Lars Vilks's speeches might just teach you something from this reality planet!
[quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?[/p][/quote]Do yourself a favour and check these speeches out - maybe you'll learn something - http://www.youtube.c om/results?search_qu ery=Stop+Islamizatio n+of+Nations%27+Inte rnational+Freedom+Co ngress&oq=Stop+Islam ization+of+Nations%2 7+International+Free dom+Congress&gs_l=yo utube-reduced.12...1 6142.16142.0.18920.1 .1.0.0.0.0.1303.1303 .7-1.1.0...0.0...1ac .2.3CUPoQesEdQ Kevin Carroll, Cliff Kincaid and Lars Vilks's speeches might just teach you something from this reality planet! Dinamarie
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@Dinamarie. Yeah. loads of **** on the internet. Just glad I also read books and and papers with more than a hint of suspicion,mixing with a variety of people. Have arguments and stuff, you know ? Stuff like that: You need to do the same.No time for people like you myself.
@Dinamarie. Yeah. loads of **** on the internet. Just glad I also read books and and papers with more than a hint of suspicion,mixing with a variety of people. Have arguments and stuff, you know ? Stuff like that: You need to do the same.No time for people like you myself. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

6:29pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

O0oh. Must look at anti islamic websites. I wonder what they say ?.....Oooh they are all repeats !
O0oh. Must look at anti islamic websites. I wonder what they say ?.....Oooh they are all repeats ! Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Sun 23 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Dinamarie wrote:
Dangermouse1 wrote:
@Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?
Do yourself a favour and check these speeches out - maybe you'll learn something - http://www.youtube.c

om/results?search_qu

ery=Stop+Islamizatio

n+of+Nations%27+Inte

rnational+Freedom+Co

ngress&oq=Stop+I
slam
ization+of+Nations%2

7+International+Free

dom+Congress&gs_
l=yo
utube-reduced.12...1

6142.16142.0.18920.1

.1.0.0.0.0.1303.1303

.7-1.1.0...0.0...1ac

.2.3CUPoQesEdQ

Kevin Carroll, Cliff Kincaid and Lars Vilks's speeches might just teach you something from this reality planet!
Speeches, marching into places where they aren't wanted. Doesn't sound fascist at all....
[quote][p][bold]Dinamarie[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: @Dinamarie: And the planet you hail from is called what pray tell ?[/p][/quote]Do yourself a favour and check these speeches out - maybe you'll learn something - http://www.youtube.c om/results?search_qu ery=Stop+Islamizatio n+of+Nations%27+Inte rnational+Freedom+Co ngress&oq=Stop+I slam ization+of+Nations%2 7+International+Free dom+Congress&gs_ l=yo utube-reduced.12...1 6142.16142.0.18920.1 .1.0.0.0.0.1303.1303 .7-1.1.0...0.0...1ac .2.3CUPoQesEdQ Kevin Carroll, Cliff Kincaid and Lars Vilks's speeches might just teach you something from this reality planet![/p][/quote]Speeches, marching into places where they aren't wanted. Doesn't sound fascist at all.... E17_er
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't.

Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result.

From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong.

You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL.

I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent.

Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should.

And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that:

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.
Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't. Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result. From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong. You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL. I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent. Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should. And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all. Techno3
  • Score: 0

6:49pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dinamarie says...

Dangermouse1 wrote:
I can't bear opportunist/self promoters. EDL use them to the max. Good job there is none on here. x
You really should check out the speeches from
"Stop Islamization of Nations' International Freedom Congress" - all on you tube....
You will hear, not a single word about hating - only warnings against the hate, that Islam promotes!
EDL do not use me! - I promote them, because I happen to believe in their fight against Islamic supremacism!
I am not against muslims as such - live by the law of the land, and we'll be fine - don't try to change it, because some stupid book's doctrines tells you to - NO religion is superior to another, not even Islam - but they are indoctrinated to believe so by their Imams and the Qu'ran of course!
To fight an enemy, you have to know, what makes this enemy tick.! Read - read - and then read some more - noone can find the whole truth in one book alone -
[quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: I can't bear opportunist/self promoters. EDL use them to the max. Good job there is none on here. x[/p][/quote]You really should check out the speeches from "Stop Islamization of Nations' International Freedom Congress" - all on you tube.... You will hear, not a single word about hating - only warnings against the hate, that Islam promotes! EDL do not use me! - I promote them, because I happen to believe in their fight against Islamic supremacism! I am not against muslims as such - live by the law of the land, and we'll be fine - don't try to change it, because some stupid book's doctrines tells you to - NO religion is superior to another, not even Islam - but they are indoctrinated to believe so by their Imams and the Qu'ran of course! To fight an enemy, you have to know, what makes this enemy tick.! Read - read - and then read some more - noone can find the whole truth in one book alone - Dinamarie
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@Dinamarie. Yeh, Yeah, the Sion meeting in New York. Oh if they said it - it must be true. SION etc have links to the banned terrorist organisation Jewish Task Force and of course there is Breivik. Robinson pleaded poverty then went to New York and Florence. Please do not insult our intelligence..... Just reading the bible. Ooh ! Some nasty stuff in there.
@Dinamarie. Yeh, Yeah, the Sion meeting in New York. Oh if they said it - it must be true. SION etc have links to the banned terrorist organisation Jewish Task Force and of course there is Breivik. Robinson pleaded poverty then went to New York and Florence. Please do not insult our intelligence..... Just reading the bible. Ooh ! Some nasty stuff in there. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

7:36pm Sun 23 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Techno3 wrote:
Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't.

Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result.

From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong.

You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL.

I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent.

Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should.

And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that:

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.
Article 30 is a very odd choice to use to try and support your argument. It is designed to protect against precisely the type of use which sees people claim to be allowed to spread hate by trying to hide behind other articles claiming free speech for example.

It would be much easier to take groups like WAWF if arguments were not based around their objections to the EDL march.

You claim to not apologise for the EDL and then proceed to do so.

Noone has the "right" to assemble to spread hate. Just because one side is as bad as the other does not make it justifiable. Hate is hate. The majority if people objct to the EDL because of that hate filled propaganda they spread. We are a democracy, we have laws that prevent things like Sharia law ever becoming implemented. What then is the need for the EDL booze cruise to Walthamstow? My rights are protected already.
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't. Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result. From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong. You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL. I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent. Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should. And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.[/p][/quote]Article 30 is a very odd choice to use to try and support your argument. It is designed to protect against precisely the type of use which sees people claim to be allowed to spread hate by trying to hide behind other articles claiming free speech for example. It would be much easier to take groups like WAWF if arguments were not based around their objections to the EDL march. You claim to not apologise for the EDL and then proceed to do so. Noone has the "right" to assemble to spread hate. Just because one side is as bad as the other does not make it justifiable. Hate is hate. The majority if people objct to the EDL because of that hate filled propaganda they spread. We are a democracy, we have laws that prevent things like Sharia law ever becoming implemented. What then is the need for the EDL booze cruise to Walthamstow? My rights are protected already. E17_er
  • Score: 0

7:38pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

The bogus points on here about freedom of speech do not apply to far right organisations like the EDL. Their aim ( and we know it because reams have been written about what happened once they got power) is to destroy freedom of speech. Why give them a chance to get a toe hold? In Welling loads of people initially supported the BNP book shop because they thought the BNP had "freedom of speech" . We had heated conversations in the pubs and the streets about how the fascists would use their "freedom of speech" . Then young black men started getting murdered and then Stephen Lawrence was murdered and the community understood how these groups use their freedom of speech, and then the community moved to close it down.
I don't mind having a debate about idea's that i consider regressive- I'm opposed to academies and free schools because I don't want any more religious institutions getting hold of our children's minds and the public purse. I sat in a public meeting two weeks ago and said I didn't want creationism taught in science- but this is a separate discussion, it's about creeping right wing fundamentalism in many religions and not about far right groups putting their jack boots on and marching in the streets.
The bogus points on here about freedom of speech do not apply to far right organisations like the EDL. Their aim ( and we know it because reams have been written about what happened once they got power) is to destroy freedom of speech. Why give them a chance to get a toe hold? In Welling loads of people initially supported the BNP book shop because they thought the BNP had "freedom of speech" . We had heated conversations in the pubs and the streets about how the fascists would use their "freedom of speech" . Then young black men started getting murdered and then Stephen Lawrence was murdered and the community understood how these groups use their freedom of speech, and then the community moved to close it down. I don't mind having a debate about idea's that i consider regressive- I'm opposed to academies and free schools because I don't want any more religious institutions getting hold of our children's minds and the public purse. I sat in a public meeting two weeks ago and said I didn't want creationism taught in science- but this is a separate discussion, it's about creeping right wing fundamentalism in many religions and not about far right groups putting their jack boots on and marching in the streets. Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

Erm..Nancy. This is not about you.
Erm..Nancy. This is not about you. Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Sun 23 Sep 12

mdj says...

'I do think that council didn't have to make cuts... I believe that Labour no longer represents working class people'

I'm glad that we can agree completely on this! It's depressing how many people still go along out of habit with those who make the right noises, without scrutinising what they truly get up to.

The EDL seem a poor lot, and possibly largely a creation of provocateurs. It's amusing that their leader is Irish. But it's ironic to see how people, many of whom would demonstrate for such groups as Amazonian tribespeople or Tibetans, who find themselves marginalised and disparaged in their indigenous areas by incomers who refuse to assimilate, suddenly change eyepatches when it's put forward that their own countrymen may have comparable complaints.
The motives of the EDL may be one thing; but if they have an argument to put forward, and do so lawfully, we are robust enough to hear it without collapsing, surely? If I hear people going around insulting my beliefs, it reassures me that I'm still living in a country where speech is free.
'I do think that council didn't have to make cuts... I believe that Labour no longer represents working class people' I'm glad that we can agree completely on this! It's depressing how many people still go along out of habit with those who make the right noises, without scrutinising what they truly get up to. The EDL seem a poor lot, and possibly largely a creation of provocateurs. It's amusing that their leader is Irish. But it's ironic to see how people, many of whom would demonstrate for such groups as Amazonian tribespeople or Tibetans, who find themselves marginalised and disparaged in their indigenous areas by incomers who refuse to assimilate, suddenly change eyepatches when it's put forward that their own countrymen may have comparable complaints. The motives of the EDL may be one thing; but if they have an argument to put forward, and do so lawfully, we are robust enough to hear it without collapsing, surely? If I hear people going around insulting my beliefs, it reassures me that I'm still living in a country where speech is free. mdj
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Dangermouse1 says...

@mdj "But it's ironic to see how people, many of whom would demonstrate for such groups as Amazonian tribespeople or Tibetans, who find themselves marginalised and disparaged in their indigenous areas by incomers who refuse to assimilate, suddenly change eyepatches when it's put forward that their own countrymen may have comparable complaints."

Now your saying the racists and Fascists of the EDL may have a point. You comparing like with like ? Please get a grip !!
@mdj "But it's ironic to see how people, many of whom would demonstrate for such groups as Amazonian tribespeople or Tibetans, who find themselves marginalised and disparaged in their indigenous areas by incomers who refuse to assimilate, suddenly change eyepatches when it's put forward that their own countrymen may have comparable complaints." Now your saying the racists and Fascists of the EDL may have a point. You comparing like with like ? Please get a grip !! Dangermouse1
  • Score: 0

8:47pm Sun 23 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

SEE YOUTUBE LINK:


"Only 15 EDL Make it to Walthamstow Rally Point and One Pi s s e s Himself Before Crowd Surrounds them ."
SEE YOUTUBE LINK: "Only 15 EDL Make it to Walthamstow Rally Point and One Pi s s e s Himself Before Crowd Surrounds them ." TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

8:52pm Sun 23 Sep 12

Nancy Taaffe says...

Dangermouse1 wrote:
Erm..Nancy. This is not about you.
I know and that is why I am making references to the wider issue of cuts and austerity. Fascism took root on the back of an economic crisis and the failure of workers parties to stop it eating into living standards, sound familiar?
But this is not something new that we're saying in The Socialist Party- we've camapigned on this for years.
With reports out today about an ice age of cuts that could last until 2020 we need to stop the EDL marching in our streets on Oct 27th and at the same time say to the Labour Council, "stop spreading division by cascading tory cuts today, we didn't elect you for that" .
[quote][p][bold]Dangermouse1[/bold] wrote: Erm..Nancy. This is not about you.[/p][/quote]I know and that is why I am making references to the wider issue of cuts and austerity. Fascism took root on the back of an economic crisis and the failure of workers parties to stop it eating into living standards, sound familiar? But this is not something new that we're saying in The Socialist Party- we've camapigned on this for years. With reports out today about an ice age of cuts that could last until 2020 we need to stop the EDL marching in our streets on Oct 27th and at the same time say to the Labour Council, "stop spreading division by cascading tory cuts today, we didn't elect you for that" . Nancy Taaffe
  • Score: 0

8:55pm Sun 23 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

FAO/EDL (grunts,ogres, trolls, sleazy nazi's, drunks,thicko's, retards, morons, **** & Orks of Lower-Ingurlaaand)

Muslims were most certainly and most definitely far more progressive than their European counterparts. Muslim civilisation had its pinnacle in Al Andalus (south Spain 711-1492 -the closest encounter possible between Africa, the Arab World and the West). This is also known as the JEWISH GOLDEN AGE by Jewish historians.

When Europe was in the Dark Ages, persecuting jews and burning witches & heretics most of the Arab countries (Moors, Saracens), and indeed non Arab countries such as Uzbekistan were more advanced.
It is a well documented fact that the muslims brought learning to Europe. And Europe would not have seen a Renaissance without this important contribution.

Muslims developed universities and opened libraries, cultivated gardens with fountains, when we in Europe were fighting over turnips and potatoes.

Also, it has to be remembered that the Muslims not only based their foundations of knowledge on the stagnant and long forgotten Hellenistic culture, (the Church on the other hand had wiped out rational medical knowledge -the candle of reason was kept burning in the Dark Ages by the Muslims), they were also the first to apply empirical research. Developed surgery tools, test tubes etc. Abulcasis is regarded as the father of modern surgery.
In psychology, the Arab physician Al-Razi was the first to study psychotherapy.

...made significant advances in psychiatry in his landmark texts El-Mansuri and Al-Hawi in the 10th century, which presented definitions, symptoms, and treatments for problems related to mental health and mental illness. He also ran the psychiatric ward of a Baghdad hospital. Such institutions could not exist in Europe at the time because of fear of demonic possessions.

It's thanks to the relentless efforts by Muslim scientists in the past that we see clearly the benefits these advances in medicine have brought to all Modern scientific medicine practiced in most hospitals today is in keeping with the same tradition of the Muslim world, not the Greeks or Romans; Anatomy, microbiology, ophthalmology, pharmacology, pharmacy, physiology, surgery, and the pharmaceutical (Chemistry is from Arabic 'Al- Kimya'), sciences -Steam distillation, Antiseptics, Anesthesia, Plaster, etc are all part of that legacy -empirical research and intellectual heritage which served as a critical basis of knowledge for the rest of the world today.
FAO/EDL (grunts,ogres, trolls, sleazy nazi's, drunks,thicko's, retards, morons, **** & Orks of Lower-Ingurlaaand) Muslims were most certainly and most definitely far more progressive than their European counterparts. Muslim civilisation had its pinnacle in Al Andalus (south Spain 711-1492 -the closest encounter possible between Africa, the Arab World and the West). This is also known as the JEWISH GOLDEN AGE by Jewish historians. When Europe was in the Dark Ages, persecuting jews and burning witches & heretics most of the Arab countries (Moors, Saracens), and indeed non Arab countries such as Uzbekistan were more advanced. It is a well documented fact that the muslims brought learning to Europe. And Europe would not have seen a Renaissance without this important contribution. Muslims developed universities and opened libraries, cultivated gardens with fountains, when we in Europe were fighting over turnips and potatoes. Also, it has to be remembered that the Muslims not only based their foundations of knowledge on the stagnant and long forgotten Hellenistic culture, (the Church on the other hand had wiped out rational medical knowledge -the candle of reason was kept burning in the Dark Ages by the Muslims), they were also the first to apply empirical research. Developed surgery tools, test tubes etc. Abulcasis is regarded as the father of modern surgery. In psychology, the Arab physician Al-Razi was the first to study psychotherapy. ...made significant advances in psychiatry in his landmark texts El-Mansuri and Al-Hawi in the 10th century, which presented definitions, symptoms, and treatments for problems related to mental health and mental illness. He also ran the psychiatric ward of a Baghdad hospital. Such institutions could not exist in Europe at the time because of fear of demonic possessions. It's thanks to the relentless efforts by Muslim scientists in the past that we see clearly the benefits these advances in medicine have brought to all Modern scientific medicine practiced in most hospitals today is in keeping with the same tradition of the Muslim world, not the Greeks or Romans; Anatomy, microbiology, ophthalmology, pharmacology, pharmacy, physiology, surgery, and the pharmaceutical (Chemistry is from Arabic 'Al- Kimya'), sciences -Steam distillation, Antiseptics, Anesthesia, Plaster, etc are all part of that legacy -empirical research and intellectual heritage which served as a critical basis of knowledge for the rest of the world today. TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Sun 23 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

cont...


One of the first ever psychiatric hospitals that cared for the mentally ill was built in Cairo. Hospitals later spread to Europe during the Crusades, inspired by the hospitals in the Middle East. The first hospital in Paris, Les Quinze-vingt, was founded by Louis IX after his return from the Crusade between 1254-1260.

Hospitals in the Islamic world featured competency tests for doctors, drug purity regulations, nurses and interns, and advanced surgical procedures.

Finally, Francis Bacon, Galileo etc did not establish the basis of the scientific method, as claimed by Western historians. It was the likes of Ibn al-Haytham (the real founder of modern physics and who also disproved the theories of Euclid and Ptolemy -who said the human eye emitted light), Ibn An-Nafees (Discovered blood circulation hundreds of years before William Harvey, 1628 -he took the credit, like so many others). Not to forget the father of modern medicine Avicenna -Ibn Sina of Hamadan, Iran. Arguably one of the most important philosophers and physicians in history.

"Our use of phrase 'The Dark ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe... from India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary... to us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view." Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419.

"One notices that the Greek and Roman cultures which preceded Islamic civilization did not produce a single eminent woman philosopher or jurist. Likewise, until the 1700s, Europe failed to produce a single female social, political, or legal jurist. Islam did exactly the opposite in every respect...Moreover, Islamic history is replete with examples of female professors who tutored famous male jurists." Professor Khalid Abou El Fadl, Professor of law, University of California. 'In Recognition of Women.'


"They established great traditions of just tolerance. They inspire people with a spirit of generosity and tolerance, and are humanitarian and practical. They created a humane community in which it was rare to see cruelty and social injustice, unlike any community that came before it...Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it….Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity." H.G. Wells

"Many proofs of high cultural level of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent are to be found in the development of science and law; in the flowering of literary works in Arabic, Persian and Turkish; in the contemporary monuments in Istanbul, Bursa, and Edirne; in the boom in luxury industries; in the sumptuous life of the court and high dignitaries, and last but not least in its religious tolerance. All the various influences - notably Turkish, Byzantine and Italian mingle together and help to make this the most brilliant epoch of the Ottomans." Marcel Clerget in 'La Turquie, Passe et Present,' Paris, 1938.

"Hunke affirms that Francis bacon, Galileo, and other Western scholars were not the ones who established the bases of the scientific method, as claimed by Western historians, but that the real forerunners and teachers of the world in this field were the Muslims. She also proves that Ibn al-Haytham was the real founder of modern physics...Indeed, while the civilised world of his time could not find an alternative to the theories of Euclid and Ptolemy, which said the human eye emits beams of light in order to see things, Ibn al-Haytham adamantly disproved this theory." BADRY,M., 2000. Contemplation: An Islamic Psychospiritual Study. IIIT, pp.102.
cont... One of the first ever psychiatric hospitals that cared for the mentally ill was built in Cairo. Hospitals later spread to Europe during the Crusades, inspired by the hospitals in the Middle East. The first hospital in Paris, Les Quinze-vingt, was founded by Louis IX after his return from the Crusade between 1254-1260. Hospitals in the Islamic world featured competency tests for doctors, drug purity regulations, nurses and interns, and advanced surgical procedures. Finally, Francis Bacon, Galileo etc did not establish the basis of the scientific method, as claimed by Western historians. It was the likes of Ibn al-Haytham (the real founder of modern physics and who also disproved the theories of Euclid and Ptolemy -who said the human eye emitted light), Ibn An-Nafees (Discovered blood circulation hundreds of years before William Harvey, 1628 -he took the credit, like so many others). Not to forget the father of modern medicine Avicenna -Ibn Sina of Hamadan, Iran. Arguably one of the most important philosophers and physicians in history. "Our use of phrase 'The Dark ages' to cover the period from 699 to 1,000 marks our undue concentration on Western Europe... from India to Spain, the brilliant civilization of Islam flourished. What was lost to christendom at this time was not lost to civilization, but quite the contrary... to us it seems that West-European civilization is civilization, but this is a narrow view." Bertrand Russel in ‘History of Western Philosophy,’ London, 1948, p. 419. "One notices that the Greek and Roman cultures which preceded Islamic civilization did not produce a single eminent woman philosopher or jurist. Likewise, until the 1700s, Europe failed to produce a single female social, political, or legal jurist. Islam did exactly the opposite in every respect...Moreover, Islamic history is replete with examples of female professors who tutored famous male jurists." Professor Khalid Abou El Fadl, Professor of law, University of California. 'In Recognition of Women.' "They established great traditions of just tolerance. They inspire people with a spirit of generosity and tolerance, and are humanitarian and practical. They created a humane community in which it was rare to see cruelty and social injustice, unlike any community that came before it...Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it….Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity." H.G. Wells "Many proofs of high cultural level of the Ottoman Empire during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent are to be found in the development of science and law; in the flowering of literary works in Arabic, Persian and Turkish; in the contemporary monuments in Istanbul, Bursa, and Edirne; in the boom in luxury industries; in the sumptuous life of the court and high dignitaries, and last but not least in its religious tolerance. All the various influences - notably Turkish, Byzantine and Italian mingle together and help to make this the most brilliant epoch of the Ottomans." Marcel Clerget in 'La Turquie, Passe et Present,' Paris, 1938. "Hunke affirms that Francis bacon, Galileo, and other Western scholars were not the ones who established the bases of the scientific method, as claimed by Western historians, but that the real forerunners and teachers of the world in this field were the Muslims. She also proves that Ibn al-Haytham was the real founder of modern physics...Indeed, while the civilised world of his time could not find an alternative to the theories of Euclid and Ptolemy, which said the human eye emits beams of light in order to see things, Ibn al-Haytham adamantly disproved this theory." BADRY,M., 2000. Contemplation: An Islamic Psychospiritual Study. IIIT, pp.102. TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

9:08pm Sun 23 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

CONT...



"During all the first part of the Middle Ages, no other people made as important a contribution to human progress as did the Arabs, if we take this term to mean all those whose mother-tongue was Arabic, and not merely those living in the Arabian peninsula. For centuries, Arabic was the language of learning, culture and intellectual progress for the whole of the civilized world with the exception of the Far East. From the IXth to the XIIth century there were more philosophical, medical, historical, religiuos, astronomical and geographical works written in Arabic than in any other human tongue." Phillip Hitti in 'Short History of the Arabs.'

"The impact of Islam on medieval Europe the most important episode of cultural transmission in the world's intellectual history. Prof. Timothy J Winter, aka Abdul Hakim Murad. Pembroke College, Oxford.
No historical student of the culture of Western Europe can ever reconstruct for himself the intellectual values of the later Middle Ages unless he possesses a vivid awareness of Islam looming in the background." Pierce Butler, Fifteenth Century of Arabic Authors in Latin Translation, in McDonald Presentation Volume; Freeport, N.Y., 1933; p. 63

"Because Europe was reacting against Islam it belittled the influence of Saracens and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and Roman heritage. So today an important task for us is to correct this false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and Islamic world."
W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Surveys: The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe; Edinburgh, England; 1972; p.84.
CONT... "During all the first part of the Middle Ages, no other people made as important a contribution to human progress as did the Arabs, if we take this term to mean all those whose mother-tongue was Arabic, and not merely those living in the Arabian peninsula. For centuries, Arabic was the language of learning, culture and intellectual progress for the whole of the civilized world with the exception of the Far East. From the IXth to the XIIth century there were more philosophical, medical, historical, religiuos, astronomical and geographical works written in Arabic than in any other human tongue." Phillip Hitti in 'Short History of the Arabs.' "The impact of Islam on medieval Europe [was] the most important episode of cultural transmission in the world's intellectual history. Prof. Timothy J Winter, aka Abdul Hakim Murad. Pembroke College, Oxford.[/quote] [quote]No historical student of the culture of Western Europe can ever reconstruct for himself the intellectual values of the later Middle Ages unless he possesses a vivid awareness of Islam looming in the background." Pierce Butler, Fifteenth Century of Arabic Authors in Latin Translation, in McDonald Presentation Volume; Freeport, N.Y., 1933; p. 63 "Because Europe was reacting against Islam it belittled the influence of Saracens [Muslims] and exaggerated its dependence on its Greek and Roman heritage. So today an important task for us is to correct this false emphasis and to acknowledge fully our debt to the Arab and Islamic world." W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Surveys: The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe; Edinburgh, England; 1972; p.84. TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Sun 23 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

Modern Degree-Granting University system...


Al Karaouine Fez, Morocco the oldest university in the world founded in 859 and Al~Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, , offered a variety of post~graduate degrees, is often considered the first full~fledged university and introduced the wearing of full academic regalia.

Scholars now believe that terms such as having ‘fellows’, holding a ‘chair’, or students ‘reading’ a subject and obtaining ‘degrees’, as well as practices such mortar boards, tassles and academic robes, can all be traced back to the practices of medieval madrasas like those still extant in Fez. It was in cities bordering Islamic Morocco, Spain and Sicily- Paris, Salerno, and Montpellier- that first developed universities in Christendom, the idea spreading northwards from there. As late as the 14th century, European scholars would travel to the Islamic world to pick up the advanced learning then on offer in the madrasas of Spain and Morocco. As the Mozarab Alvaro of Cordova wrote:

“My fellow Christians delight in the poems of the Arabs; they study the work of Muslim philosophers, not in order to refute them, but to acquire an elegant Arabic style. Where today can a layman be found who reads Latin commentaries on Holy scripture? At the mention of Christian books they protest that such works are unworthy of notice.” William Dalrymple , The Sacred Music of Fez.
Modern Degree-Granting University system... Al Karaouine Fez, Morocco the oldest university in the world founded in 859 and Al~Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, [10th century], offered a variety of post~graduate degrees, is often considered the first full~fledged university and introduced the wearing of full academic regalia. Scholars now believe that terms such as having ‘fellows’, holding a ‘chair’, or students ‘reading’ a subject and obtaining ‘degrees’, as well as practices such mortar boards, tassles and academic robes, can all be traced back to the practices of medieval madrasas like those still extant in Fez. It was in cities bordering Islamic Morocco, Spain and Sicily- Paris, Salerno, and Montpellier- that first developed universities in Christendom, the idea spreading northwards from there. As late as the 14th century, European scholars would travel to the Islamic world to pick up the advanced learning then on offer in the madrasas of Spain and Morocco. As the Mozarab Alvaro of Cordova wrote: “My fellow Christians delight in the poems of the Arabs; they study the work of Muslim philosophers, not in order to refute them, but to acquire an elegant Arabic style. Where today can a layman be found who reads Latin commentaries on Holy scripture? At the mention of Christian books they protest that such works are unworthy of notice.” William Dalrymple [Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and the Royal Asiatic Society], The Sacred Music of Fez. TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Sun 23 Sep 12

TommyIRA says...

MODERN ENGLISH LAW SYSTEM.


According to Professor John Makdisi & Professor Lawrence Rosen .

Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator.


The methodology of legal precedent and reasoning by analogy (Qiyas) used in Islamic law was similar to that of the common law legal system. According to Justice Gamal Moursi Badr, Islamic law is like common law in that it "is not a written law" and the "provisions of Islamic law are to be sought first and foremost in the teachings of the authoritative jurists" (Ulema), hence Islamic law may "be called a lawyer's law if common law is a judge's law."

It has been suggested that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal instututions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders during the Crusades.

According to Professor John Makdisi, "the royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif." The Islamic Hawala institution also influenced the development of the agency institution in English common law. Other English legal institutions such as "the scholastic method, the license to teach," the "law schools known as Inns of Court in England and Madrasas in Islam" and the "European commenda" (Islamic Qirad) may have also originated from Islamic law. These influences have led some scholars to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for "the common law as an integrated whole."

The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law. For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries. Under both a Waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis." The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East. The introduction of the trust, or "use" was primarily motivated by the need to avoid medieval inheritance taxes. By transferring legal title to a third party, there was no need to pay feudal dues on the death of the father. In those times, it was common for an underage child to lose many of his rights to his feudal overlord if he succeeded before he came of age.

The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury.

The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action "for the recovery of usurped land", in contrast to the previous Roman law which "emphasized possession in resolving such disputes." The "assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq." Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which "used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves." The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836.

Islamic jurists formulated early contract laws which introduced the application of formal rationality, legal rationality, legal logic (see Logic in Islamic philosophy) and legal reasoning in the use of contracts. Islamic jurists also introduced the concepts of recession (Iqalah), frustration of purpose (istihalah al-tanfidh or "impossibility of performance"), Act of God (Afat Samawiyah or "Misfortune from Heaven") and force majeure in the law of contracts. However, recission, frustration and other core concepts in the law of contract are relatively recent introductions into the Law of England, dating back to the Victorian period. Early case law indicates that it was impossible to rescind a contract for frustration even where performance became impossible.

REFERENCES:

Makdisi, John A. 1999, 'The Islamic Origins of the Common Law,' North Carolina Law Review

Gaudiosi, Monica M. 1988, 'The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College,' University of Pennsylvania Law Review

Badr, Gamal Moursi 1984, 'Islamic Criminal Justice,' The American Journal of Comparative Law

Badr, Gamal Moursi 1978, 'Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems,' The American Journal of Comparative Law .
MODERN ENGLISH LAW SYSTEM. According to Professor John Makdisi & Professor Lawrence Rosen . Other likely influences of Islamic law on English common law include the concepts of a passive judge, impartial judge, res judicata, the judge as a blank slate, individual self-definition, justice rather than morality, the law above the state, individualism, freedom of contract, privilege against self-incrimination, fairness over truth, individual autonomy, untrained and transitory decision making, overlap in testimonial and adjudicative tasks, appeal, dissent, day in court, prosecution for perjury, oral testimony, and the judge as a moderator, supervisor, announcer and enforcer rather than an adjudicator. The methodology of legal precedent and reasoning by analogy (Qiyas) used in Islamic law was similar to that of the common law legal system. According to Justice Gamal Moursi Badr, Islamic law is like common law in that it "is not a written law" and the "provisions of Islamic law are to be sought first and foremost in the teachings of the authoritative jurists" (Ulema), hence Islamic law may "be called a lawyer's law if common law is a judge's law." It has been suggested that several fundamental English common law institutions may have been derived or adapted from similar legal instututions in Islamic law and jurisprudence, and introduced to England after the Norman conquest of England by the Normans, who conquered and inherited the Islamic legal administration of the Emirate of Sicily, and also by Crusaders during the Crusades. According to Professor John Makdisi, "the royal English contract protected by the action of debt is identified with the Islamic Aqd, the English assize of novel disseisin is identified with the Islamic Istihqaq, and the English jury is identified with the Islamic Lafif." The Islamic Hawala institution also influenced the development of the agency institution in English common law. Other English legal institutions such as "the scholastic method, the license to teach," the "law schools known as Inns of Court in England and Madrasas in Islam" and the "European commenda" (Islamic Qirad) may have also originated from Islamic law. These influences have led some scholars to suggest that Islamic law may have laid the foundations for "the common law as an integrated whole." The Waqf in Islamic law, which developed during the 7th-9th centuries, bears a notable resemblance to the trusts in the English trust law. For example, every Waqf was required to have a waqif (founder), mutawillis (trustee), qadi (judge) and beneficiaries. Under both a Waqf and a trust, "property is reserved, and its usufruct appropriated, for the benefit of specific individuals, or for a general charitable purpose; the corpus becomes inalienable; estates for life in favor of successive beneficiaries can be created" and "without regard to the law of inheritance or the rights of the heirs; and continuity is secured by the successive appointment of trustees or mutawillis." The trust law developed in England at the time of the Crusades, during the 12th and 13th centuries, was introduced by Crusaders who may have been influenced by the Waqf institutions they came across in the Middle East. The introduction of the trust, or "use" was primarily motivated by the need to avoid medieval inheritance taxes. By transferring legal title to a third party, there was no need to pay feudal dues on the death of the father. In those times, it was common for an underage child to lose many of his rights to his feudal overlord if he succeeded before he came of age. The precursor to the English jury trial was the Lafif trial in classical Maliki jurisprudence, which was developed between the 8th and 11th centuries in North Africa and Islamic Sicily, and shares a number of similarities with the later jury trials in English common law. Like the English jury, the Islamic Lafif was a body of twelve members drawn from the neighbourhood and sworn to tell the truth, who were bound to give a unanimous verdict, about matters "which they had personally seen or heard, binding on the judge, to settle the truth concerning facts in a case, between ordinary people, and obtained as of right by the plaintiff." The only characteristic of the English jury which the Islamic Lafif lacked was the "judicial writ directing the jury to be summoned and directing the bailiff to hear its recognition." According to Professor John Makdisi, "no other institution in any legal institution studied to date shares all of these characteristics with the English jury." It is thus likely that the concept of the Lafif may have been introduced to England by the Normans and then evolved into the modern English jury. The precursor to the English assize of novel disseisin was the Islamic Istihqaq, an action "for the recovery of usurped land", in contrast to the previous Roman law which "emphasized possession in resolving such disputes." The "assize of novel disseisin broke with this tradition and emphasized ownership, as is found in the Islamic law of Istihqaq." Islamic law also introduced the notion of allowing an accused suspect or defendant to have an agent or lawyer, known as a wakil, handle his/her defense. This was in contrast to early English common law, which "used lawyers to prosecute but the accused were left to handle their defense themselves." The English Parliament did not allow those accused of treason the right to retain lawyers until 1695, and for those accused of other felonies until 1836. Islamic jurists formulated early contract laws which introduced the application of formal rationality, legal rationality, legal logic (see Logic in Islamic philosophy) and legal reasoning in the use of contracts. Islamic jurists also introduced the concepts of recession (Iqalah), frustration of purpose (istihalah al-tanfidh or "impossibility of performance"), Act of God (Afat Samawiyah or "Misfortune from Heaven") and force majeure in the law of contracts. However, recission, frustration and other core concepts in the law of contract are relatively recent introductions into the Law of England, dating back to the Victorian period. Early case law indicates that it was impossible to rescind a contract for frustration even where performance became impossible. REFERENCES: Makdisi, John A. 1999, 'The Islamic Origins of the Common Law,' North Carolina Law Review Gaudiosi, Monica M. 1988, 'The Influence of the Islamic Law of Waqf on the Development of the Trust in England: The Case of Merton College,' University of Pennsylvania Law Review Badr, Gamal Moursi 1984, 'Islamic Criminal Justice,' The American Journal of Comparative Law Badr, Gamal Moursi 1978, 'Islamic Law: Its Relation to Other Legal Systems,' The American Journal of Comparative Law . TommyIRA
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Sun 23 Sep 12

mdj says...

Ole!
But at different times, both Islam and Christianity have been dynamic promoters of scientific inquiry, and intolerant bigotry also.
A hugely more fruitful posting than the aggression we heard earlier.

Dangermouse, it seems to trouble you that views that conflict with yours should be heard: don't you trust your neighbours to hear varying opinions, and then draw a wise conclusion? Violence and incitement - from any quarter- is another matter.
In Barking several BNP councillors got themselves elected, but people soon realised that they had nothing to say about their real problems, and booted them out. That's how free speech works: I believe that it can fix whatever problems it may cause.
Ole! But at different times, both Islam and Christianity have been dynamic promoters of scientific inquiry, and intolerant bigotry also. A hugely more fruitful posting than the aggression we heard earlier. Dangermouse, it seems to trouble you that views that conflict with yours should be heard: don't you trust your neighbours to hear varying opinions, and then draw a wise conclusion? Violence and incitement - from any quarter- is another matter. In Barking several BNP councillors got themselves elected, but people soon realised that they had nothing to say about their real problems, and booted them out. That's how free speech works: I believe that it can fix whatever problems it may cause. mdj
  • Score: 0

8:29am Mon 24 Sep 12

Techno3 says...

E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote:
Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't.

Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result.

From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong.

You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL.

I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent.

Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should.

And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that:

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.
Article 30 is a very odd choice to use to try and support your argument. It is designed to protect against precisely the type of use which sees people claim to be allowed to spread hate by trying to hide behind other articles claiming free speech for example.

It would be much easier to take groups like WAWF if arguments were not based around their objections to the EDL march.

You claim to not apologise for the EDL and then proceed to do so.

Noone has the "right" to assemble to spread hate. Just because one side is as bad as the other does not make it justifiable. Hate is hate. The majority if people objct to the EDL because of that hate filled propaganda they spread. We are a democracy, we have laws that prevent things like Sharia law ever becoming implemented. What then is the need for the EDL booze cruise to Walthamstow? My rights are protected already.
I sometimes wonder what it is about people who want to restrict freedom of speech think of their fellow citizens.

Proponents of bans seem to think that merely by expounding their views, the EDL will 'spread hate'. Why would that be so? I can listen to people talking about things they do not like, hate even, and not find myself being affected by that. I have a brain, as do you. If i hear nonsense and people who have an intellectual blind spot, I can identify it as such. Most people can. I assume that if you were to hear someone say he hates jews, muslims or catholics, you would not suddenly find yourself also hating jews, muslims or catholics. You would engage your brain and say 'that is incorrect'.

Or are you worried that they may pursuade others to hate islam? If so, why would that be if hating islam is incorrect? Do you not trust your fellow citizens to make up thier own minds in a rational way? Do you think that everyone is less intelligent than you, or have been poorly educated and therefore unable to see through such talk if it has no basis to it?

I believe an aversion to being offended is natural enough, but one way not to be offended is not to listen. It is easy. Just don't turn up to the EDL meeting. This is far easier than organising people into a crowd, parts of which then become mob-like and start throwing things, necessitating massive deployment of our police forces, rerouting of all local traffic and preventing other people from going about their lawful business.

As regards law preventing shariah law being implemented, some of the counter demonstrators would disagree with you, as they were clearly advocating exactly the imposition of shariah law you say is impossible in a democracy. (English civil law actually permits some elements of islamic law being incorporated into contractual relations between conenting parties in any event).

Of some concern to many people, but obviously not to WAWF, some people connected with Anjem Choudhury have been reported in this paper already claiming to implement shariah law on an unconsenting public on the streets of Leyton. Your rights may be protected already, I don't know, but it is clear that the rights of some women in our community can't be so secure in that belief these days.
[quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't. Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result. From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong. You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL. I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent. Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should. And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.[/p][/quote]Article 30 is a very odd choice to use to try and support your argument. It is designed to protect against precisely the type of use which sees people claim to be allowed to spread hate by trying to hide behind other articles claiming free speech for example. It would be much easier to take groups like WAWF if arguments were not based around their objections to the EDL march. You claim to not apologise for the EDL and then proceed to do so. Noone has the "right" to assemble to spread hate. Just because one side is as bad as the other does not make it justifiable. Hate is hate. The majority if people objct to the EDL because of that hate filled propaganda they spread. We are a democracy, we have laws that prevent things like Sharia law ever becoming implemented. What then is the need for the EDL booze cruise to Walthamstow? My rights are protected already.[/p][/quote]I sometimes wonder what it is about people who want to restrict freedom of speech think of their fellow citizens. Proponents of bans seem to think that merely by expounding their views, the EDL will 'spread hate'. Why would that be so? I can listen to people talking about things they do not like, hate even, and not find myself being affected by that. I have a brain, as do you. If i hear nonsense and people who have an intellectual blind spot, I can identify it as such. Most people can. I assume that if you were to hear someone say he hates jews, muslims or catholics, you would not suddenly find yourself also hating jews, muslims or catholics. You would engage your brain and say 'that is incorrect'. Or are you worried that they may pursuade others to hate islam? If so, why would that be if hating islam is incorrect? Do you not trust your fellow citizens to make up thier own minds in a rational way? Do you think that everyone is less intelligent than you, or have been poorly educated and therefore unable to see through such talk if it has no basis to it? I believe an aversion to being offended is natural enough, but one way not to be offended is not to listen. It is easy. Just don't turn up to the EDL meeting. This is far easier than organising people into a crowd, parts of which then become mob-like and start throwing things, necessitating massive deployment of our police forces, rerouting of all local traffic and preventing other people from going about their lawful business. As regards law preventing shariah law being implemented, some of the counter demonstrators would disagree with you, as they were clearly advocating exactly the imposition of shariah law you say is impossible in a democracy. (English civil law actually permits some elements of islamic law being incorporated into contractual relations between conenting parties in any event). Of some concern to many people, but obviously not to WAWF, some people connected with Anjem Choudhury have been reported in this paper already claiming to implement shariah law on an unconsenting public on the streets of Leyton. Your rights may be protected already, I don't know, but it is clear that the rights of some women in our community can't be so secure in that belief these days. Techno3
  • Score: 0

11:57pm Mon 24 Sep 12

E17_er says...

Techno3 wrote:
E17_er wrote:
Techno3 wrote: Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't. Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result. From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong. You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL. I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent. Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should. And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.
Article 30 is a very odd choice to use to try and support your argument. It is designed to protect against precisely the type of use which sees people claim to be allowed to spread hate by trying to hide behind other articles claiming free speech for example. It would be much easier to take groups like WAWF if arguments were not based around their objections to the EDL march. You claim to not apologise for the EDL and then proceed to do so. Noone has the "right" to assemble to spread hate. Just because one side is as bad as the other does not make it justifiable. Hate is hate. The majority if people objct to the EDL because of that hate filled propaganda they spread. We are a democracy, we have laws that prevent things like Sharia law ever becoming implemented. What then is the need for the EDL booze cruise to Walthamstow? My rights are protected already.
I sometimes wonder what it is about people who want to restrict freedom of speech think of their fellow citizens. Proponents of bans seem to think that merely by expounding their views, the EDL will 'spread hate'. Why would that be so? I can listen to people talking about things they do not like, hate even, and not find myself being affected by that. I have a brain, as do you. If i hear nonsense and people who have an intellectual blind spot, I can identify it as such. Most people can. I assume that if you were to hear someone say he hates jews, muslims or catholics, you would not suddenly find yourself also hating jews, muslims or catholics. You would engage your brain and say 'that is incorrect'. Or are you worried that they may pursuade others to hate islam? If so, why would that be if hating islam is incorrect? Do you not trust your fellow citizens to make up thier own minds in a rational way? Do you think that everyone is less intelligent than you, or have been poorly educated and therefore unable to see through such talk if it has no basis to it? I believe an aversion to being offended is natural enough, but one way not to be offended is not to listen. It is easy. Just don't turn up to the EDL meeting. This is far easier than organising people into a crowd, parts of which then become mob-like and start throwing things, necessitating massive deployment of our police forces, rerouting of all local traffic and preventing other people from going about their lawful business. As regards law preventing shariah law being implemented, some of the counter demonstrators would disagree with you, as they were clearly advocating exactly the imposition of shariah law you say is impossible in a democracy. (English civil law actually permits some elements of islamic law being incorporated into contractual relations between conenting parties in any event). Of some concern to many people, but obviously not to WAWF, some people connected with Anjem Choudhury have been reported in this paper already claiming to implement shariah law on an unconsenting public on the streets of Leyton. Your rights may be protected already, I don't know, but it is clear that the rights of some women in our community can't be so secure in that belief these days.
When their views call for the extradition of people of a particular skin colour, and are indeed under UK law illegal, it's pretty simple.

Your cherry picking of facts is frankly embarrassing. Eg your comments about certain aspects of Sharia law being legal under UK law of course they are. I have no objection to what two consenting adults do if it is legal. Do you? Only someone who was seeking to score cheap points would infer that the aspects of Sharia Law I was referring to where anything other than those that directly conflict with British laws around equal rights based on gender and sexual persuasion.

I object to drunken idiots coming to the area and making illegal hate statements. In much the same way that I object to the illegal harassment of women by the equally moronic WAWF extremists.

You seem to be making assumptions about my beliefs to fit with your arguments of convenience.

You say all people have to do is not listen. Given the illegality of their statements you seem to be suggesting that we should sit idly by while evil men do evil deeds. That is after all all that is necessary for the triumph of evil
[quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]E17_er[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Techno3[/bold] wrote: Several statutes criminalize communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. However, that is not the same as saying that people can't have views about religions in general or that Parliament has legislated to require everyone to admire everyone else's religion. They haven't. Now, you say that the EDL encourages hatred of another religion. I suspect that could be true, though probably people who join it already hate Islam, but even if we take what you say as true, I am not sure that it would be illegal per se to point out aspects of any particular religion which they consider to be negative. I could list all sorts of things which I dislike about Catholicism, Confucianism, even the C of E and Bhuddism and would not expect to be charged with an offence as a result. From the chavvy chants and grunts it is hard to be sure exactly what all the members of the EDL believe in common, but I understand that the issue for their leaders is mainly about changes to English law which would be required were shariah law to be implemented in the UK. A discussion of changes to the English legal system is not,as far as I am aware, actually a crime. Similarly the group believes there are aspects of Enlgish culture which they wish to preserve. Personally I feel they are deluding themselves as to the amount of English 'culture' they embody or would even recognise if it were placed in front of them, but everyone is entitled to be wrong. You seem to think that i am an apologist for the EDL. I personally would have prefered it if the EDL had not marched in Walthamstow, though unfortunately, Anjem Choudhury's people had held a march some time before, and I felt in all conscience that because his obnoxious views had been tolerated, we should tolerate the expression of the views of the EDL. I believe however that what should be done about groups like the EDL is that they should be engaged with, politely, rationally and firmly. They should not have been physically attacked and common cause should not be made with disgusting groups like the Socialist Worker's party (who like the EDL brought in much of their support in the form of a rent-a-mob from outside Walthamstow) and the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists who turned up and quite openly proclaimed they wanted to destroy our way of life. Such people are as unpleasant and authoritarian as the EDL and from what I have since seen, even more violent. Why I am 'defending' the EDL over the issue of the violence which WAWF members unleashed? It was completely wrong, and people who crow about it and incite more such behaviour are completely wrong to do so. This was not the civilised behaviour I wish to see in our community and if there are community 'leaders' who don't get that, then they should. And as for cherry picking human rights, let's not forgot to mention Article 30, which states that: "Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." Which I take is a reminder to groups like WAWF that it is very important to uphold these rights of freedom of speech and assembly and not to bend over backwards to try to deny these rights to a person who, irritating as it may be to everyone who would have liked thing to have been different, at the time he was being showered with debris, had not actually committed any criminal offences at all.[/p][/quote]Article 30 is a very odd choice to use to try and support your argument. It is designed to protect against precisely the type of use which sees people claim to be allowed to spread hate by trying to hide behind other articles claiming free speech for example. It would be much easier to take groups like WAWF if arguments were not based around their objections to the EDL march. You claim to not apologise for the EDL and then proceed to do so. Noone has the "right" to assemble to spread hate. Just because one side is as bad as the other does not make it justifiable. Hate is hate. The majority if people objct to the EDL because of that hate filled propaganda they spread. We are a democracy, we have laws that prevent things like Sharia law ever becoming implemented. What then is the need for the EDL booze cruise to Walthamstow? My rights are protected already.[/p][/quote]I sometimes wonder what it is about people who want to restrict freedom of speech think of their fellow citizens. Proponents of bans seem to think that merely by expounding their views, the EDL will 'spread hate'. Why would that be so? I can listen to people talking about things they do not like, hate even, and not find myself being affected by that. I have a brain, as do you. If i hear nonsense and people who have an intellectual blind spot, I can identify it as such. Most people can. I assume that if you were to hear someone say he hates jews, muslims or catholics, you would not suddenly find yourself also hating jews, muslims or catholics. You would engage your brain and say 'that is incorrect'. Or are you worried that they may pursuade others to hate islam? If so, why would that be if hating islam is incorrect? Do you not trust your fellow citizens to make up thier own minds in a rational way? Do you think that everyone is less intelligent than you, or have been poorly educated and therefore unable to see through such talk if it has no basis to it? I believe an aversion to being offended is natural enough, but one way not to be offended is not to listen. It is easy. Just don't turn up to the EDL meeting. This is far easier than organising people into a crowd, parts of which then become mob-like and start throwing things, necessitating massive deployment of our police forces, rerouting of all local traffic and preventing other people from going about their lawful business. As regards law preventing shariah law being implemented, some of the counter demonstrators would disagree with you, as they were clearly advocating exactly the imposition of shariah law you say is impossible in a democracy. (English civil law actually permits some elements of islamic law being incorporated into contractual relations between conenting parties in any event). Of some concern to many people, but obviously not to WAWF, some people connected with Anjem Choudhury have been reported in this paper already claiming to implement shariah law on an unconsenting public on the streets of Leyton. Your rights may be protected already, I don't know, but it is clear that the rights of some women in our community can't be so secure in that belief these days.[/p][/quote]When their views call for the extradition of people of a particular skin colour, and are indeed under UK law illegal, it's pretty simple. Your cherry picking of facts is frankly embarrassing. Eg your comments about certain aspects of Sharia law being legal under UK law of course they are. I have no objection to what two consenting adults do if it is legal. Do you? Only someone who was seeking to score cheap points would infer that the aspects of Sharia Law I was referring to where anything other than those that directly conflict with British laws around equal rights based on gender and sexual persuasion. I object to drunken idiots coming to the area and making illegal hate statements. In much the same way that I object to the illegal harassment of women by the equally moronic WAWF extremists. You seem to be making assumptions about my beliefs to fit with your arguments of convenience. You say all people have to do is not listen. Given the illegality of their statements you seem to be suggesting that we should sit idly by while evil men do evil deeds. That is after all all that is necessary for the triumph of evil E17_er
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree