Protestors up in court for being nasty about British troops

[Reuben]

Just posted this on The Third Estate (http://www.thethirdestate.net)

You may remember the furious reaction that set in some time ago, when a group of Muslim protestors in Luton gathered to oppose - in pretty strong terms - a parade of soldiers returning from war. Well it appears that public denunciation is not the only response that have attracted. Today 7 people appeared in court charged with "using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others". Specifically they are alleged to have shouted 'British army murderers', 'British soldiers burn in hell' and 'Baby killers shame on you'.

Am I the only person thinking "what the fuck?". With upwards of 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed by Coalition troops are such statements not entirely reasonable? When I have gone on demonstrations I have often encountered counter-demonstrators, audibly opposed to me and my aims. Yet it appears that when the British army mount a propaganda excersize in Luton - and these parades are, amongst other things, propaganda excersizes - they have a special right to be unopposed.


Astonishingly the prosecution is building its case not on behalf of the army members on parade, but on the basis that members of the public who supported the parade may have been caused "alarm and distress". I mean, seriously! Does the right to express robust opinions stop at the point that some nearby member of the public might become upset.


More than anything this case illustrates the need to get rid of such an elastic law as that which bans "threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others". As has been recognised for centuries, a basic hallmark of even a marginally free society is the right to do what has not been forbidden. The crucial role of the law is to set the parameters within which the state may punish the individual, so that the constituted powers cannot simply take it upon themselves to punish that which they do not like.. Yet a law such as this - like the scottish law against "outraging public decency" under which a man was recently added to the Sex Offenders register for fucking his bicycle in private - makes a mockery of such guarantees. Insofar as it depends upon the subjective reactions of the public, it offers the potential to criminalise any particular action or behaviour.


In other news Alan Johnson has announced he will back an application to ban a proposed march against the war and the Army in Wooton Basset - famously the town dead troops are brought home to. Some people mind find such a march upsetting. Yet being offended, outraged and disgusted is part and parcel of living in a democracy.


It's hard to know whether Johnson is trying to win Brownie points with the flagwavers, or whether he - like previous New Labour Home secretaries - is simply an authoritarian git with a contempt for basic liberties.

[Hoggy_RS]

Britain has become much like the USA now, where it is considered the worst kind of blasphemy to speak out against the army. This is not helped by the tabloid rags and their constant and unwavering support for the troops(e.g that Sun sponsored awards ceremony for soldiers).

[blake 3:17]

Gross.

[ls]

Completely agree with you mate, there are those on this board however, who seem to think that opposing professional military bastards is reactionary!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Obviously the law's never going to be particularly favourable to us, but the extent to which this case establishes yet another legal precedent for thoughtcrime (or at least speechcrime) is pretty worrying.

[rednordman]

This sort of stuff really does make me specifically ashamed to be british. I do not think that is right that those people protested like they did (i.e at a funeral) but I do think that they should be aloud to express their opinions and be allowed to explain their point of view.

The response really is playing into the hands of organisations like BNP and EDL, because now that people like Gordon Brown are condemning the protesters, they are automatically assuming that the whole nation is on their side.

But to elaberate more on the shocking hypocracy of all this, I remember seeing an interview on skynews between a reporter and one of the leaders of the taliban (or something like that). All she did was ask him if he fealt guilty for killing soliders, because they had wifes and children back home who would obviously be devastated. I mean WTF? Like people in the west are the only people who have families? what about the soliders and bombs who kill their wifes and children? is that then ok? are they worth less than people from the west?:rolleyes: This is the kind of shit that is getting rubbed in our faces nowadays. It really does slap in the faces of people who do not think that the war is racist. Even if it isnt, I think that it is slowly transforming itself into a racial war in the minds of the british public.

[The Red Next Door]

Not cool.