Wootton Bassett

[4737_carlin]

That's actually worse than name calling. Threatening violence on here fits into a democratic response how exactly?

 

 

democratic response ? these people do not give a toss about any of that stuff !

 

giving them a kicking purely tongue and cheek as these gutless mugs who live in our country but hate it wouldnt dream of showing their faces.

[Doctoroncall]

It very much IS the point, sadly. You don't blow up spectators at a volleyball in the Pakistan Tribal Areas expecting to hit anyone other than other muslims. And that was the entire motive behind that and almost all the other attacks listed in that link.

 

What had happened prior to that explosion was the the local people had expelled Taliban thugs - something that takes a great deal of courage to do. The Taliban retaliated in the way they always do - by dynamiting all Muslims who get in their way.

 

It is no coincidence that by far - by MILES - the greatest number of victims of Taliban and al Qaeda violence is other muslims.

 

The willingness to do such an ACT of violence against another human being, whatever the religion the victim is, says more.

 

To counter your coincidence, there are more muslims in countries were the violence is happening.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I'm going. I've never been to one of these things before and don't want to be a glory hunter - anyone got any tips on which side I should support?

[View From The Top]

That's actually worse than name calling. Threatening violence on here fits into a democratic response how exactly?

 

It's also precisely how they WANT you to react. You've just been successfully manipulated by them.

 

Which is a point most miss.

 

My gut reaction, in this instance, is to fight fire with fire but that is just what Choudry and his 100 strong gimp squad want.

[Verbal]

The willingness to do such an ACT of violence against another human being, whatever the religion the victim is, says more.

 

To counter your coincidence, there are more muslims in countries were the violence is happening.

 

It's no coincidence. There is a battle for the 'soul' of the religion going on, and the victims are predominantly Muslims. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other salafists virulently hate Muslims who do not agree with them, and have a very detailed theological argument worked out that justifies killing other Muslims.

 

Because of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., we tend too easily to believe that these lunatics are trying to provoke some kind of 'war of civilizations' between east and west. They are not. as cynical as it may sound, the attacks in the west are nothing more than fund-raising and recruit-raising exercises. The real battle is for Mecca and Medina, not London or Washington.

[solentstars]

The anti-british SCUM should be deported.

 

Looking forward to the EDL march in Southampton against SCUM like this

 

southampton is a great city so why do you want nazi loving scum edl /bnp tossers marching in our city .

they should **** off with the muslim extremists brothers down the same rat hole.

[John Boy Saint]

Amazingly in this country they will probably get their day out in the Wiltshire county town un molested, if you were to turn the whole thing around and try and carry out the same protest in a Muslim country the whole thing would turn into a bloody riot.

[Arizona]

Amazingly in this country they will probably get their day out in the Wiltshire county town un molested, if you were to turn the whole thing around and try and carry out the same protest in a Muslim country the whole thing would turn into a bloody riot.

 

Which is why I'd much rather live here than in a Muslim country. In Britain there is tollerance, equality and freedom of speech. In places like Saudi Arabia and Iran there is horrendous oppression of women, minorities and homosexuals. I'd hate to live there.

[Thedelldays]

http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1107&catid=43:news&Itemid=50

[norwaysaint]

Originally Posted by Wiltshire Saint

+1

 

We must crush all protests against our country. I don't care whether they are Muslim or Christian, white or black, gay or straight - no one should be allowed to protest against the country.

shut up you troll

 

That's a pretty daft response, he actually backed up exactly what you said. Did you call him names because it highlighted the short-sighted stupidity of your viewpoint?

[Torrent Of Abuse]

Freedom Of Speech is a terrific concept, like World Peace. Sadly it doesn't fit too well with a species as flawed as ours. How can you allow complete freedom of speech when one side uses it to sow the seeds of hatred either by eliciting an angry response or by simply promoting intolerance? It's like urging peace at any cost in principle when you suspect you are dealing with someone who will take this as a weakness and use it to their advantage.

 

Sadly the only answer in my book is a compromise: allow a lmited protest in a less sensitive area. That way the protesters cannot claim to have been gagged but have failed to gain sufficient oxygen of (negative) publicity. The families of servicemen know a protest took place but also know it was not in an emotionally charged location. Everyone goes home mildly unsatisfied but not distraught.

[aintforever]

It's not fair on the people of Wootton Bassett who have just turned out to show their respects to people who have died serving their country, wether they are Christian, Muslim or Jewish, black, white or brown.

 

It shouldn't be allowed to turn into some political issue.

[Verbal]

Freedom Of Speech is a terrific concept, like World Peace. Sadly it doesn't fit too well with a species as flawed as ours. How can you allow complete freedom of speech when one side uses it to sow the seeds of hatred either by eliciting an angry response or by simply promoting intolerance? It's like urging peace at any cost in principle when you suspect you are dealing with someone who will take this as a weakness and use it to their advantage.

 

Sadly the only answer in my book is a compromise: allow a lmited protest in a less sensitive area. That way the protesters cannot claim to have been gagged but have failed to gain sufficient oxygen of (negative) publicity. The families of servicemen know a protest took place but also know it was not in an emotionally charged location. Everyone goes home mildly unsatisfied but not distraught.

 

But the idea of freedom of speech, as expressed by John Stuart Mill, who essentially formulated it for the modern world, is in no way 'complete' or absolute.

 

He argues that our right to do as we want should be free from the interference of others, so long as what we want does no harm to others. He qualifies this by saying that 'harm to others' cannot mean simply something we find repugnant.

 

You could quite easily argue that preventing a march in Wootton Bassett is the right thing to do, because there is the clear implication that the 'protest' goes beyond moral repugnance, and is really a symbolic attempt to dance on the graves of dead soldiers. With this definition of freedom of speech, the idiotic al Mahajiroun can make their protest elsewhere without complaint...if they genuinely believe they have a point to make.

 

So while your second paragraph is right, in my opinion it really isn't 'compromising' freedom of speech at all.

[scott_saints]

Freedom of speech? F**k me we are a bunch of softies.

[Thedelldays]

We live in a free society but does that mean we can do what we please?

Of course not. Our free society is shaped by rules an certain restrictions for us all to generally get along with our lives as easy as possible..

 

The same for our free speech. Yes we do have free speech in respect you can have a demo against the government and not be shot. Our free speech should be shaped by rules and restrictions. Those rules should be is what ever you are wanting to say moral, ethical and just damn right respectful. Obviously people will hve different views on what that means.

 

Should these people be able to have a march for what they believe in...? Yes they should, we as a country afford that freedom to people...

 

Should these people be able to march through wootton bassett..?

Hell no. It is morally wrong and damn right disrespectful and is only suggested to antagonise only.

 

I hope they are denied permission to march there

[Verbal]

Freedom of speech? F**k me we are a bunch of softies.

 

So freedom of speech - or liberty, which amounts to the same thing - means jacksh!t to you? You'd be right at home in somewhere like Saudi Arabia.

 

Besides, to make a very obvious point, it was the 'softies', as you call them, that defeated the Axis powers in the Second World War. Of course, the not exactly freedom-loving USSR was an ally, but the Soviet bloc's denial of basic liberties like freedom of speech only lasted another four decades.

 

The idea of freedom of speech is so corrosive of oppressive governments that they have to lock up democratic leaders in Burma, imprison dissidents calling precisely for freedom of speech for years on end, and beat advocates of political freedom to death in Iran.

 

Eventually, all of those regimes will fall because of this 'soft' idea.

 

And it may suffer setbacks from time to time - as with the Weimar Republic and the Nazis - but think of it as another version of the race between the tortoise and the hare.

[Thedelldays]

The anti-british SCUM should be deported.

 

Looking forward to the EDL march in Southampton against SCUM like this

 

You do realise that the EDL are only allowed static protests

they only move when an where the police dictate

 

so you won't see an EDL march

[Doctoroncall]

It's no coincidence. There is a battle for the 'soul' of the religion going on, and the victims are predominantly Muslims. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other salafists virulently hate Muslims who do not agree with them, and have a very detailed theological argument worked out that justifies killing other Muslims.

 

Because of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, etc., we tend too easily to believe that these lunatics are trying to provoke some kind of 'war of civilizations' between east and west. They are not. as cynical as it may sound, the attacks in the west are nothing more than fund-raising and recruit-raising exercises. The real battle is for Mecca and Medina, not London or Washington.

 

I think you miss the point I was trying to make, it doesn't matter whether it's London, Islamabad or Tehran, the extremist are willing to kill to support their view of Islam.

 

Besides, there is plenty of persecution of christians and other faiths in Islamic countries but that's another topic.

[Gingeletiss]

It should not happen:mad::mad:.......if it does, there will be major trouble, mark my words. Forget your 'right wing' groups, they should be more afraid of the 'Military' response.

 

There are laws in place to prevent this happening, it depends if the police/goverment have the balls to use them, and stop this insult to those brave young men, who have given their lives for this country.

[Thedelldays]

I wonder if the UAF will come out against this proposed march

[Verbal]

I think you miss the point I was trying to make, it doesn't matter whether it's London, Islamabad or Tehran, the extremist are willing to kill to support their view of Islam.

 

Besides, there is plenty of persecution of christians and other faiths in Islamic countries but that's another topic.

 

I didn't miss your point so much as argue that it wasn't very interesting. Of course extremists of varying kinds kill in support of their views. The critical points are: Why? What are their aims? And who do they target and kill? Your attempt to dismiss as irrelevant that other muslims are in the VAST majority of cases the victims is odd, because they are being killed in such huge numbers (certainly compared to the tragic but relatively paltry numbers of non-Muslims) for a reason.

 

And of course there's plenty of persecution of other faiths in Islamic countries, just as Muslims are targeted in Screbinica, Western China and Kashmir. Religious intolerance, unfortunately, is rife, and should be condemned. Do you have a point beyond that?

Edited 3 January, 2010 by Verbal

[Manuel]

I don't like religious extremism for a whole list of reasons, but of course we have to allow their right to a peaceful protest. They have a legal right to freedom of speech, but more importantly an ethical and moral one that must be respected. We have to value those freedoms, they are important and they should apply to everyone.

[Thedelldays]

I don't like religious extremism for a whole list of reasons, but of course we have to allow their right to a peaceful protest. They have a legal right to freedom of speech, but more importantly an ethical and moral one that must be respected. We have to value those freedoms, they are important and they should apply to everyone.

you want to respect the wishes of a known extremist group for the sake of "freedom of speech"..?

[Manuel]

Of course we must. We can't just drop a most important civil liberty because we disagree with those who choose to use it.

[Thedelldays]

Of course we must. We can't just drop a most important civil liberty because we disagree with those who choose to use it.

no matter what the cause is...

 

we are talking about an extremist group..even for such a group..I dont think anyone is saying they cant protest...people just dont want them to protest in wootton bassett..

Edited 3 January, 2010 by Thedelldays

[Johnny Bognor]

Of course we must. We can't just drop a most important civil liberty because we disagree with those who choose to use it.

 

 

In that case, I am going to march up and down Wootten Bassett with a large copy of the Satanic Verses. I will also display those sketches by that Danish artist in a Wooton Bassett art exhibition.

 

It won't be a protest, just an appreciation of art and literature. Coincidentally, I will choose to do it on the same day as the Islamic march.

 

Do you think I will be allowed to do this?

 

Or, will my right to freedom of speech be supressed?

 

I guess the latter.

Edited 3 January, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

no matter what the cause is...

 

we are talking about an extremist group..even for such a group..I dont think anyone is saying they cant protest...people just dont want them to protest in wootton bassett..

 

I agree with you. There. I said it.

[Thedelldays]

I agree with you. There. I said it.

wow

 

[hypochondriac]

indeed..but ffs...is where we are at today...just allowing something like this to take place...no doubt it will cause publiic disorder...

 

completely disgusting...

 

It is not the protest itself..it is where it is...

having knowing someone that has been through wootton bassett in a box I will be completely gutted if we, as a society/country allow this to happen...and just say "well, it is a freedom of speech"...

 

 

What would be funnier is if the protest was allowed to take place and absolutely everyone went in their houses and totally ignored them. They would feel very silly.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I wonder if the UAF will come out against this proposed march

 

I think it depends on how violently the response is by the Nazi's.

[Gingeletiss]

I think it depends on how violently the response is by the Nazi's.

 

Since when??, has there been 'Nazi's' in this country. Right wing groups, yes, but really!!!..........methinks you have an overgrown sense of the meladramatic.

[Block 5]

why can we allow this to happen...is this how feeble we have become...allowing protest by groups against our very own country..

 

this is not freedom of speech..it is just lunacy

 

Er...... yes it is.

[Thedelldays]

Er...... yes it is.

not is not....everything we live by in this country has rules...lines are drawn...and it will get drawn here

[Torrent Of Abuse]

Besides, to make a very obvious point, it was the 'softies', as you call them, that defeated the Axis powers in the Second World War. Of course, the not exactly freedom-loving USSR was an ally, but the Soviet bloc's denial of basic liberties like freedom of speech only lasted another four decades.

It was also those same 'softies' who handed Europe over to the axis powers throughout the 1930's by refusing to take action against the militaristic regimes taking root in their midst. I would hold the Labour party as culpable for its populist, pacifist stance during Hitler's rearmament as I would Chamberlain for the infamous "peace in our time" appeasement. Fascism could have been nipped in the bud early by strong leaders but those of the early 30's were haunted by a belief that war should and could not happen again, and driven by an urge to appeal that same pacifist tendency that would keep them in parliament. Sadly the axis powers did not have the same belief that WWI was "the war to end all wars". I admire high principles but the 70 million dead are a testament to the dangers of only one side following those high principles. I see no advantage in allowing a protest which has the intent to incite rather than express an opinion. To me the difference is like that between those who choose to propagandise over those who choose to inform.

[Block 5]

no matter what the cause is...

 

we are talking about an extremist group..even for such a group..I dont think anyone is saying they cant protest...people just dont want them to protest in wootton bassett..

 

The precedent has already been set.

It is illegal to protest within half a mile of the palarse of Westminster without police permission.

How long before other 'sensitive' areas are included?

[Doctoroncall]

I didn't miss your point so much as argue that it wasn't very interesting. Of course extremists of varying kinds kill in support of their views. The critical points are: Why? What are their aims? And who do they target and kill? Your attempt to dismiss as irrelevant that other muslims are in the VAST majority of cases the victims is odd, because they are being killed in such huge numbers (certainly compared to the tragic but relatively paltry numbers of non-Muslims) for a reason.

 

And of course there's plenty of persecution of other faiths in Islamic countries, just as Muslims are targeted in Screbinica, Western China and Kashmir. Religious intolerance, unfortunately, is rife, and should be condemned. Do you have a point beyond that?

 

Extremists of varying kinds do not kill in such numbers as Islamic ones. Do you really not not know what their end game is? It's not noughts and crosses.

 

Oh and sorry to bore you!!!

[View From The Top]

I think it depends on how violently the response is by the Nazi's.

 

You mean, of course, the Islamic fascists, nye, Nazis, that are embodied by this group who have proposed the march.

[Verbal]

It was also those same 'softies' who handed Europe over to the axis powers throughout the 1930's by refusing to take action against the militaristic regimes taking root in their midst. I would hold the Labour party as culpable for its populist, pacifist stance during Hitler's rearmament as I would Chamberlain for the infamous "peace in our time" appeasement. Fascism could have been nipped in the bud early by strong leaders but those of the early 30's were haunted by a belief that war should and could not happen again, and driven by an urge to appeal that same pacifist tendency that would keep them in parliament. Sadly the axis powers did not have the same belief that WWI was "the war to end all wars". I admire high principles but the 70 million dead are a testament to the dangers of only one side following those high principles. I see no advantage in allowing a protest which has the intent to incite rather than express an opinion. To me the difference is like that between those who choose to propagandise over those who choose to inform.

 

I've no doubt you're right about appeasement, but that wasn't done in the name of liberty or freedom of speech; it was done in the name of good old realpolitik - a very inter-war way of thinking. In other words: it was about as far from 'high principles' as you could possibly get - and if appeasers had stuck to these high principles, it's certainly arguable that the outcome would have been different - to the extent that it could have speare some of the 70 million lives.

 

Nevertheless, I agree with your last sentence for the reasons I've already given.

[View From The Top]

It should not happen:mad::mad:.......if it does, there will be major trouble, mark my words. Forget your 'right wing' groups, they should be more afraid of the 'Military' response.

 

Strange that you say that as I also thought that there will be an awful lot of ex-services who may have a pressing engagement in Wiltshire that day.

[benjii]

In theory; it should be allowed to go ahead and people should just ignore it. The Islamist fools will be small in number and easily ignored/policed. It should be a triumph for English democracy and liberalism.

 

What would happen in reality is that the media would start getting the mother of all menstrual strops on weeks in advance; some equally odious group of "Anglo Saxon" retards would turn up looking for a scrap and the whole thing will turn to ****.

[Verbal]

Extremists of varying kinds do not kill in such numbers as Islamic ones. Do you really not not know what their end game is? It's not noughts and crosses.

 

Oh and sorry to bore you!!!

 

Yes, as I've said, their end game is the fall of Mecca and Medina, which is why Muslims are predominantly the victims. This seems a difficult concept to grasp, but if you read one book and one book only on the actual causes and consequences of 9/11, read the New Yorker writer Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower'. It is, by far, the best researched work on the subject.

 

I fear you have a very one-dimensional view that sees the problem in the religion rather than the death cult that's evolved around bin Laden and his ugly band of murderers. And the consequence of that view becoming widespread is that it plays directly into the hands of the extremists. They WANT to create a world in which everyone sees what's going on now as 'them and us', because it raises funds and recruits.

 

Of course, it doesn't always work. Read Lawrence Wright's account of the massacre at Luxor, for example, which not only caused a wave of revulsion throughout Egypt, but came tantalisingly close to wiping out al Jihad (as al Qaeada was known at the time) before it had really got going. And their tactics won't work if we don't fall so gullibly and gormlessly into the trap they've laid.

[View From The Top]

but those of the early 30's were haunted by a belief that war should and could not happen again

 

You can hardly blame them.

 

The ruling classes of that period had lost their son's in the trenches of Flanders and in many cases, the upcoming generation and served themselves and had seen the horrors 1st hand.

 

With hindsight we know that challenging Hitler when he marched into the Rhineland would have been enough it is churlish to criticise them for trying to stop another war by "peaceful" methods.

[benjii]

In theory; it should be allowed to go ahead and people should just ignore it. The Islamist fools will be small in number and easily ignored/policed. It should be a triumph for English democracy and liberalism.

 

What would happen in reality is that the media would start getting the mother of all menstrual strops on weeks in advance; some equally odious group of "Anglo Saxon" retards would turn up looking for a scrap and the whole thing will turn to ****.

 

Just bothered to read the thread and it seems I was right ...

 

In that case, I am going to march up and down Wootten Bassett with a large copy of the Satanic Verses. I will also display those sketches by that Danish artist in a Wooton Bassett art exhibition.

 

It won't be a protest, just an appreciation of art and literature. Coincidentally, I will choose to do it on the same day as the Islamic march.

 

Do you think I will be allowed to do this?

 

Or, will my right to freedom of speech be supressed?

 

I guess the latter.

[Thedelldays]

would a relative of a fallen serviceman "retaliating" be an "anglo saxon retard"..?

[hypochondriac]

would a relative of a fallen serviceman "retaliating" be an "anglo saxon retard"..?

 

I think the most effective thing would be to let it happen and everyone just ignore it. Seriously.

[Johnny Bognor]

Just bothered to read the thread and it seems I was right ...

 

The point I was making was the oh so prescious rights of freedom of speech are unequally applied.

 

They will be allowed their march, but would I be allowed my cultural extravaganza? I think not.

 

Either it should be freedom of speech for all, or not freedom of speech at all.

 

They managed to stop this guy....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Haw

 

...as it didn't suit Nu Labours agenda.

 

I don't see them stopping this march which is designed to provoke and insight.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

I've no doubt you're right about appeasement, but that wasn't done in the name of liberty or freedom of speech; it was done in the name of good old realpolitik - a very inter-war way of thinking. In other words: it was about as far from 'high principles' as you could possibly get - and if appeasers had stuck to these high principles, it's certainly arguable that the outcome would have been different - to the extent that it could have speare some of the 70 million lives.

 

Nevertheless, I agree with your last sentence for the reasons I've already given.

 

No. I think you're wrong here. There were indeed cases of realpolitik (notably in the attitude of countries like the USSR, Romania, even Poland and France to be fair) but the most telling contribution was that of the British Empire which refused to rearm, failed to enforce conscription (even when faced with an army many times it's size) and which could have hedged in Hitler or pared Mussolini off from him (through a proper show of strength in the Mediterranean) but which failed to act because of a view that war must be prevented at any cost, whereas the only way to prevent that war seems to have been through fighting a war (albeit a smaller, more restricted one). As the saying goes: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"...

[benjii]

would a relative of a fallen serviceman "retaliating" be an "anglo saxon retard"..?

 

Possibly. Or more likely a person suffering from terrible grief.

[unionhotel]

I think that a very salient point has been missed in this whole debate.

 

Like it or not, we are at war, both in Afghanistan and in our own country. These "British" people (regardless of race or religion) are fifth columnists, enemies of the State and are openly declaring their hostility and opposition to our (their) country and as such should be regarded as the enemy within our midst.

 

Forget human rights, freedom of speech etc. and treat them exactly as they are....enemies!

[Verbal]

No. I think you're wrong here. There were indeed cases of realpolitik (notably in the attitude of countries like the USSR, Romania, even Poland and France to be fair) but the most telling contribution was that of the British Empire which refused to rearm, failed to enforce conscription (even when faced with an army many times it's size) and which could have hedged in Hitler or pared Mussolini off from him (through a proper show of strength in the Mediterranean) but which failed to act because of a view that war must be prevented at any cost, whereas the only way to prevent that war seems to have been through fighting a war (albeit a smaller, more restricted one). As the saying goes: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"...

 

Well, there's that famous quote by Chamberlain that really underlines the thinking of the British government at the time:

 

'How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!'

 

Hitler, everyone expected, would go around invading bits of Europe to his heart's content, but as long as he didn't turn his attention to Britain, that would be fine - and that there could even be a British dividend in doing a deal with the new Superpower in Europe. That is realpolitik in a nutshell - informed by the horrors of WW1 certainly, but realpolitik nonetheless.