It's fairly obvious why someone outside of the fascist group would send a bogus letter. To show the group as extreme, as violent, and to stoke up fear knowing full well Anderson would have to take some action. At the very least they may have hoped it was enough for Anderson to ban the march, and at its worst, to antagonise the situation and create confrontation with the authorities. BTW his reaction to the letter and the way the police dealt with things isn't in question. Neither are the actions of the majority of anti-fascist protestors. Just the idiots who turned up to cause trouble.
How do you smear a racist group any further than what it already stands for? The letter could have been sent by an NA sympathiser, who knows, the point is it was taken at face value, and I still contend why wouldn't you take it at face value - a threat was made that had to be taken seriously. My reason for posting the thread was to see what peoples opinions are on the right to protest, you've made yours, thanks.
Nobody, including UIR has questioned that. Ofcourse you take it at face-value. Nobody's saying otherwise. In fact, if it was an anti-fascist sending the letter, they'd be counting on it.
Some bizarre arguments here I have to say....it may have escaped some peoples notice but there are only "anti-fascists" because there are fascists ...and for all those who think freedom of speech has no limits I have to ask: a) Should these guys be allowed to stand on street corners spreading hate and preaching about bombing shopping centres or attacking British soldiers on our own streets? please log in to view this image please log in to view this image Freedom of speech right b) Should these guys be allowed to march through town preaching rights for *****philes? please log in to view this image If there's no limit to freedom of speech this is what you get (and would have no right to complain about it). Freedom of speech is vital but within an acceptable framework. Society and democracy (as imperfect as it is) should provide that framework. Marching for the right to gas jews and disabled children, burn black people or gay people, kill white women who marry men from "other races" etc etc should be deemed as unacceptable as the right march in support of buggering children or killing anyone who is "non-muslim"
Yes and the former group does exactly that. Thata free speech. Stopping even one group, regardless of how extreme their views, will mean theres an excuse to stop anything we dont believe in. And besides, removing someones right to protest, irrespective of what its about, seems likw something a fascist would do.
Oh and you do have the right to complain. Thats the beauty of it all. If someone decided to start a march in favour of *****philes then guess what, FoS allows you to counter protest and complain just how wrong it is. It's only when you start throwing bottles, setting fires and being violent, that it becomes an issue. I suspect nobody is planning a protest o support of *****philes though.
It's a hard one Billy isn't it. While I agree with freedom of speech, I don't agree with inciting hatred. Should we stop peaceful protests because we don't agree with the cause? Being racist isn't against the law, acting on those beliefs is Do people have a right to say I don't want black people in the country, yes, can they march on it, yes. It isn't how you or I think but shouldn't those who do think that way have a right to say how they feel? btw I don't think *****philes could march anywhere preaching for rights because the age of consent is covered by law so they have no rights.
They wouldnt anyway as its a shady and secretive world they want to hide fro society. Billy need not worry about rolf and co marching anytime soon. You're spot on though. For us all to have this right, we must also allow others the freedom. Or none of us have it. We dont want that.
Ricky Gervais used to do a (reasonably) funny routine about gay rights campaigners marching for the equalisation of age of consent. I think some organisations march/protest against things because they ARE the law. Equality for men in the Family Law Courts being one, but don't get my bitter old arse going on that one....
Calling yourself a neo-nazi IS inciting hatred by the very nature of what a nazi is though JB. We've had one very valuable history lesson that tells us that and I suspect not many want another This isn't a UKIP-esque "halt immigration" bunch of right-wingers we are talking about, this is the nastiest (naziest even ) form of beliefs akin to those morons who go on about sharia law/murdering non-muslims etc. People have the right to say what they like in this country anyway and that I wouldn't argue with but in the correct place and within a framework of respect. However they do not (or should not) have the right to walk through the streets of Liverpool preaching nazi values as nazi values are plainly and simply values of hate towards anyone who isn't straight, white, of pure descent (whatever the **** that means) etc. Quite simply I'd say let the people decide on this one. Despite this being painted as a fascist vs anti-fascist disagreement it wasn't. This was the good, fair, even-handed folk of Liverpool saying their vile fascist attitudes won't be tolerated in this city For that I will be forever proud of those who stood up to be counted. @UIR Sorry but as for your first point that they do still preach hatred on street corners well "On 5 August 2015, Choudary was charged with one offence under section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 for inviting support of a proscribed organisation" and Hamza was sent down about ten years ago for "inciting violence and racial hatred"...and rightly so Let's hope we act against the nazi's in the same way, their hatred is equally as vile and unacceptable. As for the *****phile march obviously I wasn't suggesting it was likely but I was just wondering how far we extend freedom of speech? We don't extend freedom of speech to the entirety of this internet forum never mind a busy shopping centre full of families and kids. Would it be acceptable for a user of this forum to air their views that Jews deserve to be gassed? Would it be acceptable for a user to go onto the United board and say the Munich disaster was a great thing or to come on this board and say those who died at Hillsborough got what they deserved? You wouldn't want those people to be silenced as it's their right to hold those views? Nazi's still have the right to hold those opinions and air their views in this country, (you only have to take a brief look at their twitter and facebook accounts to see they have a platform already and as sad as it is I respect their right to say what they want on there) but there's a time and a place for it IMO and Liverpool city centre certainly isn't it.
This is it spot on, if we ban the fascists just for their political views then were do we stop? It is a fine line and not a solution I am happy with but for me the only realistic option is for us to go with the rule of law (laws can be corrupted etc yes but that's a different discussion). if the people break the law then punish them, ban the organisation if need be, but whatever we do, it has to have a legal basis otherwise we end up with a system of vigilantism where mob rule decides what is acceptable.
Incitement is active mate, just being there in the 'uniform' doesn't qualify, although I fully agree with you on everything you've said here. If somebody - a random person not a member of an organised group - hates Jews and wants to walk around in a Nazi uniform [I don't like the way this site defaults to capitalising that word btw] shouldn't they be allowed to? It's an interesting question that I find myself wanting to answer no to, yet at the same time - on an intellectual level [?] I think it's wrong to ban their freedom of expression. Like you I'm proud that the citizens of Liverpool took a stance by voting with their feet.
They SHOULD be allowed to march for those things AND say that they are for them. We find them abhorent, but who is to decide the cut off and what is unacceptable. Social morality changes. At one point (not many decades ago) a gay pride march would have been considered grossly indecent and unnaceptable. 200 years ago the thought of women marching for voting rights would be abhorent and "against the natural order". Freedom of speech means people you disagree with; even the vile and disgusting, get to have their say. If you limit speech based on morality then today there would be no woman's sufferage. There would be no equal rights for minorities. There would still be laws making homosexuality illegal. All those things would once upon a time be considered too indecent to march against. Too indecent to allow positive talk about. I'm all for the scum of the earth having their say. We don't have to like it and we don't have to listen but it simply isn't free speech unless they get to talk too.
China has freedom of speech. Except against things they find morally repugnant. How well does Chinese freedom of speech work?
Freedom of speech [which includes not just spoken words but also covers expressions of freedom] has to have limitations when it's up against other rights that have to be protected such as public order, public health, or national security to name a few. Selling pornography to children would be allowed under the right to disseminate ideas so curbing freedom of speech does benefit society in some cases.
All fair points Milk but nevertheless I'd argue not relevant in this scenario. As I posted yesterday their twitter and facebook feeds suggest they were not planning a peaceful march to put forward their ideals in a calm and rational manner. Are phrases such as (and I quote a couple of many from their twitter feed) "No More ****ing Around: this weekend we will take drastic action. #WMM#NationalAction" and "If you seek violence, you can be sure you'll find it. #WMM". These aren't peaceful people fighting for their rights they are violent scumbags looking for a fight.....in which case I'd say the people have every right to stand up and say not in our town. Had they been any other group threatening violence and destruction I'd say exactly the same. The fact that they are fascist scum of course makes me even happier I must admit but let's not kid ourselves they have had their right to free speech removed, they have simply had their violent intentions shoved back down their cowardly mouths
