On The March With The English Defence League

[hetrodoxly]

My point is that it makes no sense to tell people to come back where they came from. No human evolved in England.

Or America.

[Setton]

Or America.

Your point being..? Or was that just a random statement?

[hetrodoxly]

Your point being..? Or was that just a random statement?

You state Brits have no right to claim the land they live on because humans never evolved there, so i assume this would be the same for native Americans etc?

[Setton]

You state Brits have no right to claim the land they live on because humans never evolved there, so i assume this would be the same for native Americans etc?

No. I didn't say that at all and honestly have no idea how you came up with it. I say everyone has the right to live in the country they choose to.

Taking the logic of those that say 'they should go back where they came from' however is ludicrous. How far back are they going to take it? Anything less than back to the earliest humans and it's meaningless and if they do take it back that far, the world's population all need to move to East Africa.

[itsnotoutthere]

No. I didn't say that at all and honestly have no idea how you came up with it. I say everyone has the right to live in the country they choose to.

Taking the logic of those that say 'they should go back where they came from' however is ludicrous. How far back are they going to take it? Anything less than back to the earliest humans and it's meaningless and if they do take it back that far, the world's population all need to move to East Africa.

When you say 'go back to where they came from' perhaps they mean, back to the country whose culture, laws, religion & general way of life they seem so keen on, rather than trying to export it 'wholesale' to this country. Just a thought.

[Setton]

When you say 'go back to where they came from' perhaps they mean, back to the country whose culture, laws, religion & general way of life they seem so keen on, rather than trying to export it 'wholesale' to this country. Just a thought.

Then why do they say it to people who like this country's culture, laws and religion and who, often, apreciate it more then those shouting the abuse?

Because they just look at skin colour or someone who has an unusual name and think they must be from somewhere else.

[dekker87]

Because they just look at skin colour or someone who has an unusual name and think they must be from somewhere else.

is that really such an unreasonable assumption to make?

when i was in the congo no-one ever thought i was native to the area (there ARE white congolese)...

and what do you think of white africans...do you think them to be 'as' african as black africans? do you look at a white man in africa and automatically assume he's a native?

i very much doubt it.

an irrelevance really in any case....as this is NOT ABOUT RACE...it's about an extreme religious idealology and how that doesn't gel with british laws and customs.

i really don't know why you keep bring it back to race....you seem a tad obsessed with it tbh.

and i don't take anything from facebook as being remotely representative of either the EDL or any other political group.

it's a social networking site not ****in parliament ffs.

[Setton]

is that really such an unreasonable assumption to make?

Frankly, yes.

when i was in the congo no-one ever thought i was native to the area (there ARE white congolese)...

and what do you think of white africans...do you think them to be 'as' african as black africans? do you look at a white man in africa and automatically assume he's a native?

i very much doubt it.

Doubt what you like, it doesn't change reality. If I see a person in a country (bar holiday resorts etc.) I assume they are a native.

an irrelevance really in any case....as this is NOT ABOUT RACE...it's about an extreme religious idealology and how that doesn't gel with british laws and customs.

i really don't know why you keep bring it back to race....you seem a tad obsessed with it tbh.

I'm not the one bringing it back to race. That's the supporters of the EDL. As an organisation, it may not be about race but that's what many of it's supporters see it as.

and i don't take anything from facebook as being remotely representative of either the EDL or any other political group.

it's a social networking site not ****in parliament ffs.

But these people are the same people who support it, who go to the demonstrations. They ARE the EDL. An organisation isn't just a name or the people at the top. The members ARE the organisation; the organisation IS it's members. The two can't be separated.

There was someone else on their who is in favour of the official EDL ideaology and tried explaining what the EDL is actually about. The other members told her to '**** off back where you came from' and asked 'what kind of name is that anyway?'. And you say they aren't racist?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Setton

[dekker87]

Frankly, yes.

naive.

Doubt what you like, it doesn't change reality. If I see a person in a country (bar holiday resorts etc.) I assume they are a native.

two things - no.1 - you're not being honest there...if you saw a white man in deepest africa you would not assume them to be a native.

and no.2 - if you did the probability would be that you were wrong.

see?

lifes a little more complicated than it appears in the flush of youth.

I'm not the one bringing it back to race. That's the supporters of the EDL. As an organisation, it may not be about race but that's what many of it's supporters see it as.

no it was you who posted the comments on this thread....claiming they are from EDL members and constantly bringing the situation back to race.

that's not what it is about.

But these people are the same people who support it, who go to the demonstrations. They ARE the EDL. An organisation isn't just a name or the people at the top. The members ARE the organisation; the organisation IS it's members. The two can't be separated.

there are NO 'members' of the EDL. just organisers and supporters.

and faceless idiots on facebook (yes i know the irony of that statement ) mean naught in the greater scheme of things.

There was someone else on their who is in favour of the official EDL ideaology and tried explaining what the EDL is actually about. The other members told her to '**** off back where you came from' and asked 'what kind of name is that anyway?'. And you say they aren't racist?

ermmmm...have you not just answered your own query there? surely if these racists were rejecting the official EDL policies then they were not EDL supporters!?!?

point to dekker.

[Setton]

naive.

two things - no.1 - you're not being honest there...if you saw a white man in deepest africa you would not assume them to be a native.

Don't tell me what I do or don't think. You know nothing about me and I do not appreciate being called a liar by a complete stranger.

You might assume where people are from based on their looks and names. I do not. You know what they say about assuming.

and no.2 - if you did the probability would be that you were wrong.

see?

lifes a little more complicated than it appears in the flush of youth.

Maybe I'd be wrong but I'd wait to find out for sure rather than risk offending them.

no it was you who posted the comments on this thread....claiming they are from EDL members and constantly bringing the situation back to race.

Because that is what I have against the EDL and you claimed they are not racist. Their supporters clearly are.

that's not what it is about.

But it's what the supporters see it as about.

there are NO 'members' of the EDL. just organisers and supporters.

Fine. Substitute the word supporters for members. The point still stands.

and faceless idiots on facebook (yes i know the irony of that statement ) mean naught in the greater scheme of things.

They are the people who go to the demonstrations. They are, effectively, the EDL.

ermmmm...have you not just answered your own query there? surely if these racists were rejecting the official EDL policies then they were not EDL supporters!?!?

The important thing is that they claim to be EDL supporters. They go to the demonstrations and are the public face of it. Perhaps the EDL should consider having members. It would allow them to distance themselves from those who cause trouble in their name.

point to dekker.

Not really, no...

You might want to wait for a response before gloating. It's very bad form.

[hetrodoxly]

No. I didn't say that at all and honestly have no idea how you came up with it. I say everyone has the right to live in the country they choose to.

Taking the logic of those that say 'they should go back where they came from' however is ludicrous. How far back are they going to take it? Anything less than back to the earliest humans and it's meaningless and if they do take it back that far, the world's population all need to move to East Africa.

Your splitting hairs, your saying native American Indians have no right to tell Europeans to go back to where they came from ie get off their land because Native Americans never evolved there?

[dekker87]

Don't tell me what I do or don't think. You know nothing about me and I do not appreciate being called a liar by a complete stranger.

You might assume where people are from based on their looks and names. I do not. You know what they say about assuming.

it's human nature....just be honest...you haven't travelled much have you.

Maybe I'd be wrong but I'd wait to find out for sure rather than risk offending them.

how would thinking something offend anyone? and why would anyone be offended anyway!?! i look a bit..erm....teutonic and often get nistaken for a german when abroad...doesn't offend me in the slightest...should it?

Because that is what I have against the EDL and you claimed they are not racist. Their supporters clearly are.

some retarded statements from some keyboard racists on facebook is what you post as proof!!

surely the idealology of the edl is more important? go and log on to stormfront....see what real racism and real nazis are actually like...

But it's what the supporters see it as about.

idiots have attached themselves because of people like you and the media in general who can't report in the issues and prefer the juicy 'nazi racist' angle and so promote the edl as such.

ine. Substitute the word supporters for members. The point still stands.

so any group that has supporters who are racist is in itself racist?

that just about covers every group ever concieved by anyone.

They are the people who go to the demonstrations. They are, effectively, the EDL.

have you been to any demonstrations?

The important thing is that they claim to be EDL supporters. They go to the demonstrations and are the public face of it. Perhaps the EDL should consider having members. It would allow them to distance themselves from those who cause trouble in their name.

that may be a good idea.

Not really, no...

You might want to wait for a response before gloating. It's very bad form.

[Setton]

it's human nature....just be honest...you haven't travelled much have you.

A lot actually. It comes with my line of study.

how would thinking something offend anyone? and why would anyone be offended anyway!?! i look a bit..erm....teutonic and often get nistaken for a german when abroad...doesn't offend me in the slightest...should it?

Why would anyone be offended that you assume they don't belong here just because of the colour of their skin? Do I really need to answer that?

some retarded statements from some keyboard racists on facebook is what you post as proof!!

surely the idealology of the edl is more important? go and log on to stormfront....see what real racism and real nazis are actually like...

You seem somewhat blinkered to the idea but I'll say it again: The EDL is it's supporters; the supporters are the EDL.

idiots have attached themselves because of people like you and the media in general who can't report in the issues and prefer the juicy 'nazi racist' angle and so promote the edl as such.

The media reports what it sees. Often with a particular spin, I'll grant you but still what it sees. If it portrays EDL supporters as racist then that is because they have seen ones that are.

so any group that has supporters who are racist is in itself racist?

that just about covers every group ever concieved by anyone.

Not any group that has racists in it but any group where the majority of it's supporters are involved because of their own racist views.

have you been to any demonstrations?

Not personally. I prefer not to spend my time with racists. I have seen plenty of reports, though, which is what leads me to the conclusion that the racist comments on the facebook page are made by the people who attend the demonstrations - namely, the sentiments are exactly the same (although you seem to think the media just has it in for the EDL rather than consider the unpleasant possibility that many of it's supporters are not as you would like them to be).

Your splitting hairs, your saying native American Indians have no right to tell Europeans to go back to where they came from ie get off their land because Native Americans never evolved there?

I don't think the Native Americans should be able to tell Europeans to go back where they came from, no. They should be allowed to stay, on the condition that they accept the culture that was already in place.

The difference is, the people here being told to go home have chosen to live here and accept our culture because they think it's the best one going. And some people respond to this praise by telling them they should leave and have no right to be there.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Setton

[hetrodoxly]

I don't think the Native Americans should be able to tell Europeans to go back where they came from, no. They should be allowed to stay, on the condition that they accept the culture that was already in place.

The difference is, the people here being told to go home have chosen to live here and accept our culture because they think it's the best one going. And some people respond to this praise by telling them they should leave and have no right to be there.

We can chuck out those who don't accept our culture?

[Setton]

We can chuck out those who don't accept our culture?

I worded that badly. Not those who don't accept our culture, those who try to wipe it out.

[dekker87]

A lot actually. It comes with my line of study.

and what is that line of study?

air hostess??

Why would anyone be offended that you assume they don't belong here just because of the colour of their skin? Do I really need to answer that?

errr...that's not quite what i said but yeah tell me why if i mistook a white angolan for someone from a european background - tell me why they would be offended....

You seem somewhat blinkered to the idea but I'll say it again: The EDL is it's supporters; the supporters are the EDL.

and most of it's supporters are not racist in idealology...there is no white supremicist thinking behind the EDL...there is no anti-semitic thought....there is no hostility towards people based on their skin colour....just their religion.

don't get it twisted....as many times as you wanna keep saying racist racist racist it doesn't mean the organisation actually is racist.

i keep asking you but you don't seem to be able to answer...how can a racist organisation have members of ALL different races within it's ranks!?

shouldnt you be more concerned with the genuine racism, sexism and homophobia of the Islamists? the ones who call for the execution of gays? who think women shouldn't be equal to men before the law? who want to impose facist sharia law based on fairy stories over the whole population?

or do you see the greater threat as some numpties who aren't trained in the use of politically correct language...

The media reports what it sees. Often with a particular spin, I'll grant you but still what it sees. If it portrays EDL supporters as racist then that is because they have seen ones that are.

naive.

Not any group that has racists in it but any group where the majority of it's supporters are involved because of their own racist views.

not true. you haven't proven your case.

do you think that 1000's of EDL chanting 'mohammed is a paedophile' is racism?!? do you think that the edl should be prosecuted for chanting such a thing?? even if it is based on truthes from the quran and the hadiths?

Not personally. I prefer not to spend my time with racists. I have seen plenty of reports, though, which is what leads me to the conclusion that the racist comments on the facebook page are made by the people who attend the demonstrations - namely, the sentiments are exactly the same (although you seem to think the media just has it in for the EDL rather than consider the unpleasant possibility that many of it's supporters are not as you would like them to be).

race race race - you're obsessed!

I don't think the Native Americans should be able to tell Europeans to go back where they came from, no. They should be allowed to stay, on the condition that they accept the culture that was already in place.

the 'culture' of the 'native' americans!?! human sacrifice, slavery and cannibalism!?

nice.

The difference is, the people here being told to go home have chosen to live here and accept our culture because they think it's the best one going.

these people are the ones the EDL protests against and i've seen no official statements from the EDL concerning repatriation or anything of the sort.

the EDL official spokesperson is a sikh of indian heritage.

what part of that do you not understand.

i know you desperately want this to be about race (so you can fight the same battles we fought in the 80's against the NF, BNP and C18!??!) but it simply is not....

[Setton]

and what is that line of study?

air hostess??

My line of study is geology. It takes me on field trips all around the world. I thought I'd explained the problems with assuming things...

the 'culture' of the 'native' americans!?! human sacrifice, slavery and cannibalism!?

nice.

Would you like to provide sources to back those up?

It appears the only true one is slavery. Since this was also practiced by europeans, it seems reasonable to assume that the native

americans would have abolished it in their own time had they been left in peace.

As for the rest of this discussion, we are just going over old material. You don't want to consider anything presented to you so I won't waste my time further. I hoped I could get you to see reason but apparently not. I'm sorry. Hopefully someone better with words will open your eyes someday.

[dekker87]

My line of study is geology. It takes me on field trips all around the world. I thought I'd explained the problems with assuming things...

interestin field....where have you travelled to?

Would you like to provide sources to back those up?

here's one to start:

My link

and you'll have go google these others yourself cos i'm too busy but try these searches:

chaco canyon cannibalism

apache toture methods.

try also to research the early history of the exploration of the gulf of mexico...it's absolutely fascinating...and a real eye opener to those who have this rosy eyed picture of indians as being some sort of proto-hippy earth loving peaceful people.

It appears the only true one is slavery. Since this was also practiced by europeans, it seems reasonable to assume that the native americans would have abolished it in their own time had they been left in peace.

'left in peace' - there was no peace!! the tribes were constantly at war with each other...

and what was that you were saying about assumptions?

As for the rest of this discussion, we are just going over old material. You don't want to consider anything presented to you so I won't waste my time further. I hoped I could get you to see reason but apparently not. I'm sorry. Hopefully someone better with words will open your eyes someday.

sorry but you've presented nothing that shows the EDL is a racist organisation...which seems to be the main thrust of your argument.

[Setton]

interestin field....where have you travelled to?

So far? Cyprus, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, USA, Switzerland with plans to go to Canada, Australia and South America in the next few years.

I've also been to Zambia with scouting.

here's one to start:

My link

Looks interesting. It'll have to wait until I can get it from a library though. Student budget, you know

and you'll have go google these others yourself cos i'm too busy but try these searches:

chaco canyon cannibalism

Took place c.900 AD. No reason to assume it was part of the Native American culture the Europeans wiped out.

apache toture methods.

"Apache torture, far from indiscriminate savagery, was in truth a pure form of retributive justice, and that Apaches never tortured

captives who had fought them bravely. What's more, for all of their supposed savagery Apache warriors never, ever, engaged in rape. Rape was simply unknown to the Apache soul. As for slavery, that was a part of war. The children of slaves were not slaves, but fully accepted Apaches. To be Apache was to have been raised Apache, absolutely regardless of race."

Lammi, W; Nietzsche, the Apaches, and Stanford: The Hidden Agenda of Education for Difference Available here

So it seems Apache torture was no different to the corporal punishment in place in our own justice systems at the time.

try also to research the early history of the exploration of the gulf of mexico...it's absolutely fascinating...and a real eye opener to those who have this rosy eyed picture of indians as being some sort of proto-hippy earth loving peaceful people.

I'll see if I can find the time.

'left in peace' - there was no peace!! the tribes were constantly at war with each other...

And the invading Europeans brought peace did they? Anyway, war was very uncommon among the Native Americans. Raids certainly and the occasional skirmish but war was very rare.

and what was that you were saying about assumptions?

That is a point to you.

[itsnotoutthere]

Remember the guy who burned the poppy on Remembrance day? Unemployed (and probably unemployable) got a £50 pound fine and boasted that he'd pay it out of his £800 a month benefits.

Well the guy who tried to stop him doing it was in court today charged under a Section Five public disorder offence (he jumped a police barrier to stop the burning)

Well I've just learned he was fined £315.

He has appealed the fine and will be going to Isleworth Crown Court in 6-8 weeks for the retrial, so currently the fine is on hold.

One guy who offends a nation gets fined £50, another guy who tried to stop him is fined £315 awaiting an appeal, and one guy who burns a Koran gets a 70 day jail sentence.

And they wonder why people are getting angry.

There may be reports tomorrow of violence outside the court, so lets' put the record straight. There were 50 supporters outside the court, 10 Muslim youths approached them and one punched a young lady in the face, two of the Muslims were arrested, not the supporters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ZFVc2uwMY&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcstwVxI5nw&feature=player_embedded

"As Muslims, we are obliged to speak the truth wherever we are. We believe that Britain and the entire world, belong to Almighty God and that His Law should reign supreme i.e. Shari'ah; in light of this, we are also working to transform Britain into a flourishing Islamic State and we urge anyone who does not like this to leave."

That quote comes from the Muslims against crusades website, That's the mindset of the people we're up against, they think we should leave.

A MUSLIM extremist group has placed Prince Harry at the centre of a hate campaign against the Royal Family, it emerged last night.

Muslims Against Crusades have admitted that an online video featuring Harry was intended to galvanise opposition to his brother’s wedding.

And they said the Prince’s Afghanistan duty makes him a prime target for their fury.

Spokesman Anjem Choudary said: “There is a real anger with the Royal Family about their participation in war against Iraq and Prince Harry because of his tour fighting against Muslims in Afghanistan.

“Prince William has also expressed a desire to fight in Afghanistan.”

Real anger by who? A minority Muslim group who can barely muster 250 supporters to mourn the death of Bin Laden outside the American Embassy? Or does this go deeper, certainly a lot of Muslims are unhappy about Western forces operating in so called Muslim lands, though they are also indifferent about Islamic atrocities in our countries too, hypocritical seems to be the correct term for the Islamic world view, mostly because for every atrocity they commit we get a wailing of "it's not all Muslims" and we shouldn't judge them by the actions of a so called minority. That would be ok save for the fact that the so called minority openly operate in the Muslim communities and the silence is deafening from those communities in rooting them out.

Edited May 22, 2011 by itsnotoutthere

[Robin_Shadowes]

There are jews and hindus in EDL as well so how can they be racists? And please tell what race a muslim is? LOL!

[Blackwhite]

Remember the guy who burned the poppy on Remembrance day? Unemployed (and probably unemployable) got a £50 pound fine and boasted that he'd pay it out of his £800 a month benefits.

Well the guy who tried to stop him doing it was in court today charged under a Section Five public disorder offence (he jumped a police barrier to stop the burning)

Well I've just learned he was fined £315.

That's what happens when a country becomes ruled by Left Wingers.

Here's the dole-dossing scumbag who burnt the poppies with the support of Lefties:

If you are a Muslim you can bang on about how much you hate Britain and even go as far as performing the disgusting act of burning poppies on Remembrance Day, therefore insulting the hundreds of thousands of brave men who fought for this country's freedom and for the right for numpties like these Islamofascists to go out protesting in the first place. And they say they hate Britain and everything it stands for but don't mind accepting huge benefits and handouts paid for by the taxpayer because they can't be bothered to go out and find a job. And, on the off chance that they do get collared for their crimes, they get a paltry £50 fine, which is mere pocket money amongst the vast benefits they pick up for doing nothing.

But when you are a member of a group who protests against the burning of the poppy - a correct thing to do - then you are dealt with severely and are given a whopping £315, even though all you were doing was standing up for your nation and the many brave men who died for our freedom.

So, in a country rule by Lefties, basically we have to stand by and do nothing whilst swivel-eyed, mouth-foaming, Islamofascist dole dossers spout vile abuse about our nation (except its benefits system) and about the people paying their benefits, but stand up against these loons and you are dealt with severely.

It's time more British people started standing up and taking action against such a travesty and if the English Defence League, the Scottish Defence League or the Welsh Defence League is the way to go then so be it.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Blackwhite

[dekker87]

That's what happens when a country becomes ruled by Left Wingers.

Here's the dole-dossing scumbag who burnt the poppies with the support of Lefties:

If you are a Muslim you can bang on about how much you hate Britain and even go as far as performing the disgusting act of burning poppies on Remembrance Day, therefore insulting the hundreds of thousands of brave men who fought for this country's freedom and for the right for numpties like these Islamofascists to go out protesting in the first place. And they say they hate Britain and everything it stands for but don't mind accepting huge benefits and handouts paid for by the taxpayer because they can't be bothered to go out and find a job. And, on the off chance that they do get collared for their crimes, they get a paltry £50 fine, which is mere pocket money amongst the vast benefits they pick up for doing nothing.

But when you are a member of a group who protests against the burning of the poppy - a correct thing to do - then you are dealt with severely and are given a whopping £315, even though all you were doing was standing up for your nation and the many brave men who died for our freedom.

So, in a country rule by Lefties, basically we have to stand by and do nothing whilst swivel-eyed, mouth-foaming, Islamofascist dole dossers spout vile abuse about our nation (except its benefits system) and about the people paying their benefits, but stand up against these loons and you are dealt with severely.

It's time more British people started standing up and taking action against such a travesty and if the English Defence League, the Scottish Defence League or the Welsh Defence League is the way to go then so be it.

i don't disagree with the thrust of your post other than to point out that your comments about 'leftys' are a bit misleading.

these people aren't 'leftists'...they are reactionaries who don't really understand politics...there is nothign inherently left-wing in supporting islamist terrorists.

these are people whose 'left' credentials are predicated on a hatred for the west and the western way of life...people like the socialist workers party and their lackeys in the UAF.

i'm a creature of the left and you won't find anyone who will argue against islamism stronger than I.

this is the left that i belong to:

My link

some noteworthy points:

3 Human rights for all.

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples

6 Opposing anti-Americanism.

We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.

8 Against racism.

For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form

of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror. The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.

9 United against terror.

We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.

11 A critical openness.

Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.

13 Freedom of ideas.

We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas — even whole bodies of ideas — to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.

[lp21why]

I wholeheartedly agree with Dekker's post. I would class myself as on the Left, but I have nothing but contempt for people that spout hatred and violent rhetoric against anyone that doesn't agree with them. That includes the people who support Islamic terrorism.

Similarly the EDL have a core of supporters who do follow what they stand for. But there's a hardcore of people that are simply there to promote a similar ideology to those they supposedly stand against. They fight violence with violence, hatred with hatred. They are the ones that have destroyed anything the EDL stood for.

Edited May 23, 2011 by lp21why

[dekker87]

Similarly the EDL have a core of supporters who do follow what they stand for. But there's a hardcore of people that are simply there to promote a similar ideology to those they supposedly stand against. They fight violence with violence, hatred with hatred. They are the ones that have destroyed anything the EDL stood for.

that, sadly, may be correct...not idealologically (they aren't bright enough) but certainly they are throwing hate around like it's the whole point of the exercise...which it isn't.