http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6989581.stm
Whatever happened to the right to protest for what you believe in? These people weren't doing anything wrong. You might not agree with their opinion, but that's not strong enough an excuse to ban their protest.
Its not as if they were supporting violence. Because their protest was of a right-wing nature, it was obviously seen as threatening.
Unless
they were atcually acting in a threatening or aggressive manner?
Not too many details there...
You'd think the BBC would get off on including that though.
Since they're totally left-wing when it comes to media slant.
Probably yeah
I don't know, I'm something a bench sitter on this subject. I suppose if the protest was specifically and obviously ant-Islamist rather than anti-Islam this is incredibly unfair. Its a blurred line though
You're only allowed to protest
If it preaches hated to rich people and 'fat cats'. Everyhting else is unnacceptable and just plain intolerance.
*hatred toward
thats so true
IT HURTS
lol
yeah, no protests i've ever been on have been stopped!
back in the olden days of northern ireland
the battle of the boyne marches were timed to be as offensive as possible to the catholics.
these were timed to be not as ofensive as possible to muslims but to make life as hard as possible for them. they were implicitly racist also. it will have been the mayor prerogative to ban the march as it will have been highly counterproductive.
nb you might like this: http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2129
I've been arrested for protesting before
well hardly protesting, handing out leaflettes outside a resturant, i got kept in a cell half the night, interviewed at 4AM and accused to being an animal rights terrorist involved with ALF.
You have the right to protest peacefully under the human rights legislation, you're just not allowed to chant, block entrances to buildings or insight violence
Were you involved with the ALF?
Not in the slightest
it was with a very peacefull local group
this?
http://tinyurl.com/33rsd4
i was also 16 at the time
i dont think many 16 year olds are involved with the ALF
ALF???
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/6/62/ALF.jpg
Yeap, that millitant bastard
Srsly though, what the frig is ALF if not a cuddly alien?
the Animal Liberation Front
millitant animal rights group, like freeing animals from fur farms, labs, factory farms and commiting the odd arson attack.
Oh, I see.
They're the stupid daft shit-for-brains idiots behind the freeing of the minks yeah?
I know nothing else about them, but that one act makes me want to stab them all in the eye with a rusty cigar.
I dont know some of their direct action stuff i approve of
rescuing animals from fur farms, factory farms etc, but the fact that they then decide to set fire to things and generally act quite violent kind of gives anyone who gets involved in animal rights a bad name
lol
don't get involved with ALF.
nice picture
!
Thanks. That's on one of my 'beardy' days
"Remember extremist animal rights group, the Animal Liberation Front?
Well now they're back, in pog form"
:D
Fool
http://www.drownedinsound.com/user/view/15943
Whatever happened to education in this country? What happened to spending your time on something useful rather than trying to become a total master baiter?
I really don't know...
What?
What?
Exactly.
I don't see what was so hard to get.
I was employing satire to make my point.
funny how
you have such a massive problem with foreigners burning flags, but think this is all fune
fune
its a cross between "fun" and "fine"
I did spend
a good three minutes trying to find the effigy/flag-burning thread, but couldn't. Ho hum. The world still turns.
Not really that funny.
Flag burning is like treason. Coming to a new country, and burning their flag is TOTALLY unacceptable. The logic of it is, if you don't like the way your new home is, fuck off.
However, if I'm worried about my home country being spoiled by a load of lunatics, brainwashed with some 'takeover' agenda, I think its a little different.
If they'd have gone to Pakistan, and started protesting about it there, then fair enough. Kick them and throw them in a cell. But not in their own country.
'But these were British Asians.'
They obviously didn't feel the same way.
if they were brittish asians
then they were in their home country non?
I think that by burning the Union Jack,
they were saying they weren't British and that they didn't like us.
I don't mind them making those ridiculous dummies and stamping around in their own countries, but when they're doing it in London, they should roll a tank over them all.
that's a bit strong
sure they shouldn't have done that, and denouncing their country is pretty bad, but i can understand why they feel like certain aspects of life in their country are limitting their freedom. we are afterall talking about a nation which for one reson or another has invaded a number of purely muslim countries this millenium, as well as creating laws that seem rather biased against them for detention.
it is obvious that the terrorist activity that we are on the receiving end of is from supposed muslims, but there are element of the right wing who would have them completely band from Britain, which is not a nice thing to face in your own nation
what if a pure blood white brit burns the flag?
fuck teh flag. if someone wants to piss on it, that's their perogative. you moan about these rightwing belgians not being allowed political expression, but then think british asians burning the flag is treason? hmmm, interesting and quite revealing if not at all unexpected
Like I say,
there's a difference between political expression and violent treason.
With DiS' left-wing goggles, you look at it as if anything remotely right is bad and wrong and nasty.
Burning a flag is signifying your hatred towards the nation. Its basically saying 'We hate your country.'
These guys were saying 'Cut down on Islamic immigration.'.
Big difference.
and you don't support the right for people to say 'we hate your (/our) country?
and burning a flag is not an act of violence
and i don't regard all things right-wing as necessarily bad
it makes me laugh of the right always feels persecuted by the supposed 'liberal elite'. what a baby you are
the muslim population in brussels is absolutely massive
and yet there is hardly any religious tension/race attacks/other big bad things you probably think the big bad muslims do.
therefore, this protest was entirely pointless. they claimed that it was a peaceful, non-racist protest, but considering the organisers were members of the vlaams belang, and other far-right organisations, that definitely wasn't the case.
had the protest been allowed to go ahead, the vlaams belang bastards would have gone along and preached anti-islamic, hate-filled rubbish and there would probably have been a retaliation from the very sizeable muslim population.
the north african population in brussels is, luckily, well-integrated, and allowing protests like this would only change that.
i'm relieved it didn't go ahead.
I don't understand why you link
'anti-Islamic' with 'hate-filled'?
Does it really make you hate-filled to be anti-religion?
no, don't be silly.
it just so happens that these people are both anti-islamic and hate-filled.
besides, there's a difference between being anti-islamic and being anti-organised religion.
I know.
The reason I single Islam out is because its the absolutely worst one of them all. The big ones, anyway.
it's not.
with the possible exception of Buddhism, they're all as bad as each other.
depends what kind of buddhism
tibetan buddhism allows slave-owning theocracy
I said possible
I think I'm lenient towards Buddhism because it's the one I know the least about.
although i aym suspicious of your motives for posting this story
you are correct. the protest should not have been banned in the first place. free speech is absolute - which means if a bunch of neo-nazis want to march to trafalgar square, or the bnp, or socialists, or greenpeace, or jacobian islamists calling for sharia, gay rights activists, trade unionists, or those muppets with 'we are all hizbullah now' banners - they should all be equally considered. the state should not be suppressing political thought, however abhorrent their beliefs are.
i agree, in theory
but in context, i think the belgian government made the right choice.
the belgian government is generally pretty liberal, and i think this was the first protest to be banned in about six years, when hundreds are staged in brussels every year.
honestly, anything to do with vlaams belang is bad news, and although the organisers tried to pass it off as perfectly innocent, it was clear from the outset what their motives were.
I'm not being
a dick here, but just because you don't like them, that shouldn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to protest.
And what exactly were they going to do? Go and burn down a mosque?
Allowing the protest to go ahead would've been the right option, then stopping it if it got out of hand.
well, i'm sorry, but in this instance
i think the muslim people of europe's right to live their lives here free from prosecution > the right of some old, racist flemish guys to spout off bullshit.
wut?
Who said anything about prosecuting Belgian muslims?
As I've said time and again: they were calling for a cutdown on Islamic immigration.
srsly.
read something about vlaams blok and filip dewinter.
they claimed they were calling for a cutdown on islamic immigration (which itself is incredibly racist. i mean, why stop one particular faith from immigrating?!) because they thought their stupid protest would be given the green light if it couldn't be construed as overtly racist.
campaigning to cut down on a specific ethnic/religious type of potential immigrants arther than all
is pretty offensive to the members of that ethnicity/religion already inthe country. don't you think they'll feel a little persecuted?
i disagree
free speech applies to everyone - as soon as you allow the state to decide what is okay and what isn't you are heading down a dangerous path (as i believe we are in britain).
you can argue the protest should have been banned on public safety grounds but not because it would offend a section of the population.
i find the more radical islamic-socialist (what an unholy union that is!) protests offensive - they give sucre to homophobic misogynistic theocrats but i wouldn't ban their marches.
Being anti-Islam
isn't the same as being Hezbullah, or Neo-Nazi, or Jacobian Islamists calling for Sharia.
All the above will have some sort of violent, oppressive agenda.
These wanted to cut down on the number of immigrants going into the country.
Also: the BNP, Socialists, Gay Rights activists, trade unionists can protest all they like in my opinion. As long as they don't do it in roads, mind.
*Islamic immigrants.
beingh anti-islam is also oppressive
if it means reducing people's civil liberties and seeking to turf them over the border
No it doesn't.
If you'd read the article, you'd have realised they wanted to cut Islamic immigration. They don't want to do anything to anyone's civil liberties. They didn't want anyone kicking out.
i was talking n more general terms
most of the anti-islam lot don't wnat more mosques but are happy to keep the churchbells tolling. it is about civil rights etc
I went outside early on a sunday for the first time recently.
Without the double glazed glass protecting me, I could hear the sound of the churchbells. My reaction: "How do they get away with that??" (noise pollution)
Why on earth were you of all people
up and about on a sunday morning?!
I work now, doncha know? :P
They get away with it
because our national religion is Christianity, isn't it? Church of England.
like i said, i believe in seperation of church and state
and there's more actively religious muslims these days than actively religious anglicans
yeah, that's what they claimed they were there for.
but Frank Vanhecke and Filip Dewinter are both fairly notoriously racist and unpleasant vlaams belang members, with some fairly awful policies and beliefs.