If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Wooton Bassett
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6927633/Muslim-cleric-Anjem-Choudary-vows-to-continue-Wootton-Bassett-march.html
Is this just asking for trouble? I personally don't agree with allowing the march to go ahead, freedom of speech or not, the town where the fallen come through isn't the place to make a political statement.
Is this just asking for trouble? I personally don't agree with allowing the march to go ahead, freedom of speech or not, the town where the fallen come through isn't the place to make a political statement.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Surely, if they died for anything, then it's the right to dissent no matter how sensitive the subject or venue?
Im not saying that racial attacks are or should be allowed, but when its clear that this venue for a pro islamic extremist march has been chosen, purely for the distress it will cause, then that is wrong.
There will be small minded people there who would attack the march, Its not right, but purely on the ground that the act of the march at that place will incite racial tension, it shouldnt be allowed.
If they are promoting their dead in Afghanistan, why do they have to do it there, if its the country/armed forces they are aiming this at, why create a hostile atmosphere for the people of wooton bassett, all they have done is exercise their right to show respect to who they want to.
I personally cant go into too much detail on this, as I feel I will go on a rant, and never stop, and say a lot of things that I will mean, couldnt take back, but be ashamed about.
To end this, Id like to inform thesite.org of the number of Islamic followers that I am aware of, who oppose this march, as they are not extremist and believe acts like this only cause (and are intended to cause) racial incitement, and to then play the religion card when something goes wrong.
Its not right or justified that an Islamic extremist gets kicked in when he/she parades in Wooton Basset, but they would be stupid to go there and march. The same thing will happen as it has done with other parades by that group. They will cancel at the last minute, and claim it was because of fears of getting kicked in. When really they never intended to march in the first place.
I think it's a little more complicated than saying that it's been picked simply to cause distress. Regardless of personal feelings on the issue, Wooton Bassett represents a place that honors the fallen of the British Army.
The claim that there should be a symbolic march in the same town to remind people of the many, many more people killed by British troops does more of an internal logic behind it then simply 'to cause distress'.
Just saying, impartially, there's a stronger case here than just causing offence. There wouldn't be if the marches through Wooton Bassett hadn't ended up as such a PR event - but they have and that can't be ignored when considering the issues here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/wootton-bassett-islam4uk-parade-troops
I'm not really sure I see this as a contentious issue. Islam4UK should be allowed to hold peaceful protest marches on whichever public ground they choose. Also, if I were to hold a march I'd certainly consider holding it in a place that was likely to garner me as much media attention as possible.
Well if he goes half as ballistic as I have, there will still be sparks from Hong Kong to Chicago.
Well, the shoe is on the other foot now.
FWIW as a pragmatist I like to get along peacefully with people so see it in some ways as uneccessarily confrontational in the sense that they must know its going to upset some people. But that can be said of a lot of things really, politically I see no reason to intervene except for the potential for some kind of riot...
Does this remind anyone at all of the marches and stuff in northern ireland?
Yeah im all for free speech, and while the Dutch cartoonist (recently in the papers) did cause controversy, he was expressing his freedom of speech. I always thought freedom of speach is paramount.
With this march, they can say all they want that their intent is not to cause panic and dismay amongst the populace, but knowing fine well that it would, and still going ahead, is tantamount to deliberately antagonising the crowds.
But they should be allowed to march, just as others; Christians, Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Agnostics, Atheist and Jedi should be allowed to say what they think of them.
Haven't you noticed that it's the extremists that drive the agenda these days?
Nope, the media. And idiots make a better headline.
in concept i see nothing wrong with saying there's a lot of hidden civilian deaths abroad, and that perhaps people should truly see the full horror of an occupation/liberation/puppetering (whatever you wanna call it)
i think that however the way the information about it has been spread suggests it's an inflammetry thing, even if it might not be
more important than anything though is providing a good forum between locals, the police and anyone who wants to make a demonstration which is bound to be as 'emotional' as something as that
the guy who is behind it was on the radio earlier, from what i heard, he made clear he isn't actually having a go at servicemen etc but more of the sheer futility of some of the conflict going on, especially when if you read on the current afghan government which we there to 'protect', they've allowed a man to refuse his wife food if she refuses sex, or quite simply the sheer mass corruption that got karzai elected
I'm in agreement with Flashman though, these types have a remarkably selective conscience when regarding other violence within their own international community. Aww well out of sight out of mind.
The cartoon was Danish btw...
Compare that with their equally outraged reaction regarding the Mohammed cartoon incident, when they defended freedom of speech to the hilt.
As their former columnist Richard Littledick would put it, you couldn't make it up.
Sky News article
So that's a 'no' from Gordon Brown then. No way he would debate with them.
Now that'd be something I'd be willing to watch
Reminds me of the conservative party.
Agree.
I don't think anyone's saying that Islam4UK shouldn't be able to protest; people seem just to be sharing their views about what a bell-end the leader is - which he clearly is.
Certain quarters are trying to build up a US-style atmosphere in this country in which the armed forces are immediately elevated to demi-gods, and any criticism of them or the wars they engage in (even though to be fair it's the government that's responsible for waging them) is seen as treason. The Scum utters that very word today.
It's as ludicrous as is worrying.
Neither does Nick Griffin when he's talking about the war in Afghanistan, but I certainly would lend my support to his views on it, because I know the motives behind such statements. I know the stated aims of both the BNP and Islam4UK, and the mindset of the people involved, so however reasonable their statements might appear, I'm certainly not falling for their BS.
An interesting side note is that Choudary and his cronies protested against Geert Wilders being allowed into this country to give his views on Islam. Free speech if you agree with us, but not if you don't is the order of the day it seems. And while I will always support their right to protest, frankly I have zero sympathy with anyone bleating on about their free speech, when they would happily deny that right to anyone who disagrees with them. And any group that calls for an "Islamic punishment" of someone who had the audacity to make a little film criticising Islam falls into that category.
Do you mean that he doesn't sound extremist on this particular occasion?
Or do you mean in general, such as his glorifying support for the "Fantastic Four" July 7 bombers?
Or do you support his call for the death of illustrators of the Danish cartoons?
Or perhaps you support his call from last year, whereby people who get drunk ought to be publicly flogged and declared that alcohol should be "removed from society"?
Or even his goal is to abolish our democracy and impose a shariah state on all of us?
The Islam4UK website is down at the moment, but when/if it comes back up read his open letter to the relatives of dead soliders.
Edit: See Teagan's other examples as well.