The Met is right to resist pressure on Palestinian march – politicalbetting.com
The Met is right to resist pressure on Palestinian march – politicalbetting.com
There is a big political row growing over the plans to have a pro-Palestinian march this Sunday which of course is Remembrance Day.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
edit: and first.
"Imran Hussain: Shadow minister quits Labour front bench over Gaza"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67353019
"He said he had "unequivocally condemned" Hamas's attack on 7 October and believed that "every country has the right to defend itself", but that that should "never become a right to deliberately violate international law on protecting civilians or to commit war crimes"."
Another person stating that, of course, Israel has the right to defend itself, but it cannot actually defend itself after an act of war has been committed against it.
News sources appear to suggest that the Palestine march, and the EDL counter, are planned for Saturday. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/07/ban-pro-palestine-march-armistice-day-mark-rowley-hamas/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/07/no-grounds-to-ban-pro-palestine-march-in-london-on-armistice-day-met-believes
Whereas the formalities at the Cenotaph (with the Royals, Ministers, and other dignitaries) are on Remembrance Sunday.
Actually, I don't think it should be anyone's role to ban marches that meet legal requirements. The precedent is too ominous. Free speech isn't just for people who agree with me or anyone else.
Suppressing them would be counter-productive anyway because they give people a chance to let off steam. Protest is a substitute for achieving something.
All good.
Then a third march is organised; again, they talk to the police and authorities, and meet all the legal requirements. But police are worried about their capacity to police this third march, and with things like public transport to get everyone in and out of the town. Should that third march get the go-ahead, or should the organisers be persuaded to try for a different day? (*)
So I'm not sayin they should be 'banned'; just that there are other factors. But if the police don't think they can cope with that third march, and the organisers choose to go ahead anyway, it should be a politician saying it should be stopped, not the police.
Although if people turn up for that third march, when the police are busy with the first two events, they're going to be in trouble anyway...
(*) I assume this is how it works...
Not my cup of tea, and I am working so not free in any case.
Those wanting the march stopped seem to disapprove of both cause and people which isn't in my eyes a valid reason to stop it.
The 'rights' of a noisy minority to cause chaos to local areas is all too easily abused. Not all marchers / protestors are exactly pure of heart.
If only pro-government marches are allowed we have ceased to be a democracy.
I've asked people many times on here, what Israel *should* do? I've had one answer from @Richard_Tyndall ; assassinations. Which is a good answer, but probably won't help immediately, won't cure the problem, and might have massive international repurcussions.
So anyone who is calling for 'peace' (and always from Israel, and rarely Hamas / Hezbollah as well) should state *what* they want Israel to do. for many, I fear the answer is "cease to exist*. either because that's what they want, or because they don't realise that's the end result of what they're calling for.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/nov/08/robelinda2-youtube-cricket-channel-pulled-down-why-copyright
Are you saying no march should ever be banned?
What evidence do you have for criminal damage or rioting being likely?
It is reasonable for any counter demonstration to be kept separate, and for police and crowd marshalls to negotiate appropriate routes in the interest of crowd and public safety etc
Where you draw the line isn't entirely clear, as it's relatively recent legislation which hasn't been tested often enough in court precisely to define the boundaries.
Giving them the power to adjudicate on individual matches is a truly dreadful idea.
Otherwise you might just have senior police officers banning marches (or allowing them...) for whatever reason they care to concoct, as intelligence can often not become public.
Let elected politicians make the decisions, and have to stand by those decisions. Not the police. The police should just decide if the march meets the legal requirements; anything above that should be a political decision.
Marches should not be banned for political reasons.
Or do you think any scale of destruction and death in Gaza is justified? Would a million deaths be too many? 100 000? 50 000? Where would you draw the line?
They’ve been “advising” people not hold demos on “safety” grounds since this war started.
The reason - they didn’t want two opposing sets of protestors on the streets, even in different bits of London.
Realising this, the dung beetles of the EDL sensed shit. So they planned their march, entirely to setup for
1) Banning marches
2) A violent riot
3) Lots of racism on display
4) EDL tries to play victim. Fascists, like all totalitarians, like cosplaying victimhood.
As for the principle; it is not the same at all. A 'school shooter' is an individual; Hamas are a massive group running a pseudo-state.
The march(es) is (are) planned for Remembrance Day - but that's Saturday, not Sunday.
There will be no clash with the ceremony.
The erosion of civil liberties should hardly surprise us though. It has been a consistent theme of the current Government.
The courts interpret the law, of course.
And, of course, the Public Order Act already gives ministers power to amend the law without real Parliamentary scrutiny.
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/advice_information/pcsc-policing-act-protest-rights/
Because that's what Hamas want.
And yes, there is a line. I've just no idea where that line is. But it's not at an Israel-does-nothing point.
I'd also point out that Hamas should immediately release all hostages back to Israel, and stop firing rockets.
Edit: and you ignored my question, which is rather important: "What would you have Israel do?"
Forgive me for being old school but I don’t think it’s for the government to decide what days opposition happens.
https://twitter.com/josiahmortimer/status/1722160858719977514
How did I miss this?
David Davis: Removing warrant requirement is 'fundamental mistake'
David Davis has argued the Government will make a “fundamental mistake” if it goes ahead with plans to let the police search properties without a court warrant.
The former Brexit secretary, a long-standing campaigner for civil rights, said the move would take away a “fundamental foundation stone… of free British society”.
He continued: “It’s there with jury trials and it’s there with the presumption of innocence.
“The right not to have the state kick your door down and come search your house with judicial approval is a massively important British value. The judicial control of the police is vital and must be preserved.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/11/07/rishi-sunak-latest-news-parliament-opening-live/#1699376111243
People have repeatedly answered your question of what should Israel do. Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less. Meanwhile, they could also halt the illegal settlements in the West Bank.
But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply as you will be saying the same thing tomorrow and the day after.
We’ve seen more than enough evidence of this sort of drift towards managed democracy in former Soviet countries, in Poland and Hungary, Turkey and of course Russia itself to know it only goes one way. It starts with innocent enough excuses (like traffic congestion or stretched policing) that become ever more blatant over time.
The initial judgment should be with police but that power should also be subject to judicial oversight. Keep it as far away from parliament as possible. Let them argue over the politics, not permission.
The stop the war coalition are a spectrum from naive peaceniks to borderline
malevolent but they have as much right to protest as anyone else.
Here is the problem. I read this morning in the *Financial Times* that the al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City has an extensive network of Hamas tunnels underneath it. As Israel closes the net on Hamas we know exactly what people will say - evil Israel attacking a hospital. Not evil Hamas turning a hospital into their base. They will demand a Ceasefire Now. That Israel not attack the hospital. They say for peace, but in harsh reality for Hamas.
There is no easy out, no simple solution. A heavily armed terrorist organisation - funded and equipped by Iran - is under this hospital. Under people's homes and businesses. You can't just stop fighting. Or Hamas win. And after a brief pause the fighting goes on, likely this time with Hamas and IJ / Hezbollah going at Israel on multiple fronts.
Israel faces defeat. Again. And yet is seen as the aggressor. The psychopaths digging themselves under the hospital seen as the victims. It is a perverse world we now live in.
"Take military action against Hamas, but drop fewer bombs and target civilian infrastructure less." is a really easy thing to say, but perhaps impossible given the size of Gaza and where Hamas have put many of their facilities. It's little more than a way to excoriate Israel for what it's doing, without giving a reasonable alternative.
"Why are you playing rhetorical games? "
I'm not. Asking people for their alternatives, when they strongly state something should not be done, is reasonable.
And the [people who want Israel to cease to exist will be saying the same things tomorrow and the day after.
A lot of the same people were calling for ceasefire and a peace deal with Russia last spring. Doing so would have meant advancing a step closer to elimination of Ukraine as an independent entity.
Imagine having terrorists running your NHS trust. An army of psychopaths under your hospital. Weapons and guns stored under your wards. This is the reality of what Hamas have done to Gaza. They are not about to stop because people in the west are appalled by the slaughter.
So what does Israel do?
I really can't get my head around the idea that it's unacceptable to call for a ceasefire on Armistice Day.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1722163171270517237
Israel is faced this century with an equally implacable foe. One that has just engaged in an orgy of death and captivity of people based on their religion alone. A foe that has pledged the destruction of their very being.
Given what they have endured in the past, they have every right to consider the threat of a repeat being real. The cities of the Nazis were bombed to oblivion to stop that threat being carried out (albeit they made a hideously effective job at implementing it before they were stopped). The were no marches to stop that. No counts of the dead babies. Just a grim determination to get the job done.
If the assault on Germany had been a year later, we would doubtless have used the then-available atomic bombs on those same cities. Without qualms.
Hamas can end the pain on their dying people by changing their credo - and acknowledging Israel's right to exist. By releasing their hostages. By giving maps of all their tunnels. By pledging to build no more. Who will be marching to demand Hamas do that - to save the children?
From Hansard:-
This is one of the fundamental foundation stones of a free British society, along with jury trials and the presumption of innocence. The right not to have the state kick your door down and search your house without judicial approval is a massively important British value.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2023-11-07/debates/4BADC4BB-07D9-4376-ABE6-069C9823F38A/DebateOnTheAddress
At what point do you think the destruction becomes excessive? Or is there no line to cross.
The Public Order Act already gives plenty (FWIW, I'd argue too many) grounds to ban public protests.
In this context it would just be giving the HS the power to ban protests they didn't like.
But I'd rather have an elected politician publicly banning something, than nameless people from the police, judiciary or security services doing it.
At which point do Hamas get any of the blame.
Telegraph writers are too thick to understand a double negative.
It is an unequal war with terrorists, but it has to stay unequal if we (or Israel) is to remain civilised.
I accept there are dangers; but there are also dangers the other way, too.
It’s a word for fecks sake.
And people wonder why some get irate about woke.
No. It is an unequal war with a government consisting of terrorists. And it's more unequal if you don't allow Israel to fight back.
The sad thing is, 'a government consisting of terrorists' can also be thrown against Israel. Thanks, Netanyahu ...
I have sympathy for everyone who wants to march calling for peace. But if you march with FOA or on one of their rallies you do not march for peace. You march for genocide whether you know it or not. So who is organising the marches on Saturday?
Israel, from my very distant view, is at least trying not to kill civilians. Hamas gloried in doing so in disgusting, perverted ways.
Are you an expert in urban warfare? You are quick to dismiss the possibility that Israel could act differently in Gaza. The amount of bombing they’re doing is much higher than other recent urban conflicts in the region. Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS. Israel possesses total military superiority over Hamas. I don’t see the need for their bombing strategy.
You keep asking people for their alternatives. People keep giving you alternatives, and you don’t engage with those answers. You dismiss out of hand the possibility of different Israeli military tactics. You skip over the suggestion that Israel could halt its illegal settlements.
EDIT: as unusual, “operational convenience” has created a fuck up. When you ban one side (in effect), the other will start asking for “some of that”.
Discussion will just go round and round and round in circles if we just keep strawmanning any contrary view.
‘Nothing short of astounding’: How Egypt defied the odds to eliminate hepatitis C
Within a decade, the country has gone from having among the worst global rates of the disease to near eradication
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/how-egypt-eliminated-hepatitis-c-middle-east-health/ (£££)
The solution is for a 3rd party to guarantee the peace. Send it (as an example) a heavily armed Saudi force to separate the two protagonists and build a secure peace for Gaza.
Two problems: no suitable 3rd party will do the job, and if they did Hamas would attack them. Should Israel remain civilised if staying civil means that it gets exterminated? Because that is the mission of Hamas, that is the mission of Hezbollah - who undoubtedly would launch their attack if Ceasefire Now happens - and that is the will of Iran.
What is happening in Gaza is appalling. But the fault is not with Israel. It is with Hamas. Ceasefire Now should be demanding that *Hamas* stop, that Hamas release the hostages, that Hamas clear the tunnels and open itself to UN inspection, that Hamas should allow free elections.
Hamas is the aggressor, not Israel.
Substituting the rule of ministers for the rule of law does not end well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt_Vision_2030
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Administrative_Capital
maybe we should ask them to run the UK for a bit.
Saying "They should go in, but cause less casualties" is not an answer. For one thing, they question becomes what is an 'acceptable' number of casualties. For another, they don't say how that is supposed to be done. Your 'Are you an expert in urban warfare?' applies as much to people who say that, as it does to me.
I've no idea what the answer is. Neither, it seems, do you. Hamas know the international laws, and are using them against Israel. Hamas are evil, but not stupid.
What ceasefire...
Barclay has every right to criticise the march - and I might agree with him, were he to do so in terms which aren't idiotic.
Arguing it shouldn't take place is another matter.
Where's the outrage ?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/06/the-guardian-view-on-pakistans-expulsion-of-afghans-dont-send-them-back-to-the-taliban
This is a stupid and morally bankrupt way to proceed. Ultimately, what is the limit - “take off and nuke the place from orbit”?
As the Americans found in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they switched to COIN tactics - which accept increased risk to troops and much less civilian death and destruction.
Personally you wouldn't catch me anywhere near one of these marches as I am sure that many of those taking part ARE there for anti-semitic reasons and do support not just the Palestinian population but Hamas as well. I wouldn't want to be associated with them even when I am in agreement with many others who will be marching about trying to stop the war.
But at the same time I don't believe that the police should be stopping people going on such marches and that the public have a right to express their opnions in such ways.
There is one additional point though. The police ban marches all the time. They do so on public order grounds, public safety grounds and, I am sure, on public opinion grounds as well though they would never admit to that. They have the power to do so under the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Act 2022. So it is dishonest of the Met to claim, as they do this morning, that they have no power to prevent the marches. They do, sadly. They are just choosing not to use that power in this instance but are also too cowardly to take responsibility for it.
For the record I think it is wrong that they can ban marches but I object to the claim that it is out of their hands.
But the Metropolitan Police Service applied for permission to stop the protests amid public order fears.
After receiving the official application late on Thursday, Home Secretary Theresa May today agreed to a ban across five London boroughs.
She said: ‘Having carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected, I have given my consent to a ban on all marches in Tower Hamlets and four neighbouring boroughs for a 30-day period.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-agrees-march-ban
Second, stop the settlements. Israeli settlements on the West Bank are illegal under international law and a barrier to peace.
You have not engaged with either of these points.
The problem is that Ceasefire Now is not a ceasefire where hostilities end. Lets say that the IDF stop - Hamas won't. They will push out propaganda for a period whilst they get fresh arms in from Iran. Then they go again.