Well said!

Specifically they are alleged to have shouted ‘British army murderers’, ‘British soldiers burn in hell’ and ‘Baby killers shame on you’.

Don’t agree with this at all. Soldiers put their lives at risk to defend the country, and if you want to blame anyone, then blame the politicians.

I wouldn’t do the same even if it were Iraq, though I’ve said plenty of times why I support staying in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan was legal according to international law.

And there are more Islamists like the Taliban killing Muslims there now than our troops.

A question…

If I turned up at your mother’s funeral and shouted “YOUR MOTHER WAS A WHORE AND A DRUNKARD!!” and carried a placard stating, “SHE’S BETTER OFF DEAD! STICK HER IN THE GROUND!” would you seek to have me removed?

Or would you let me get on with my ranting while pushing my way forward through groups of your relatives right to the graveside where I spat on the coffin?

I agree with Sunny, agression directed at the troops is unimaginably naive. You’re a good chap Reuben, but your dislike of the war in Iraq is nut as numbskulled as Islam4UK’s, don’t allow intellectual justification for them and their methods of protest.

Completely agree with Carl and Sunny.

Any strategy which involves activists trying to disrupt the British war effort and bring the troops home before the politicians are ready to agree to it involves winning over the troops. There are good strategies for this, like giving high profiles to objecters from within the military.

Screaming abuse just alienates the protest movement from the army. I remember hearing from friends about such abuse being yelled at American military bases, with protesters spitting and all sorts. The soldiers got hostile, rather than becoming interested – even the soldiers who were innately sympathetic and against the war.

You all raise some good points. Yet the fundamental
point here – and indeed the fundamental point of the piece – is not whether the protestors rhetoric is correct or tactically useful but whether such actions should be criminalised by the state.

is not whether the protestors rhetoric is correct or tactically useful but whether such actions should be criminalised by the state.

We all agree that rhetoric should not be criminalised, and its unlikely to be.

But by trying to justify these people’s actions, all you’re doing is giving ammo to the loons from the tabloid-right.

It’s perfectly sensible to disagree with I4UK while defending their rights. But it’s a foolish tactical and moral mistake to then go on to rubbish soldiers as well.

Sunny et al, you make valid points: political opposition to war starts and ends with the government that sent the soldiers there. But there’s a moral dimension here as well, and I think you’re far too quick to excuse the actions of the soldiers who, even whilst the vast majority are acting completely within the confines of law and order, are still responsible for tens of thousands of civillian deaths. I’m reminded of Abbie Hoffman’s famous quote: “Murder in a uniform is heroic, in a costume it is a crime.” I’ve known many soldiers who are amazing people, kind and decent, dutiful and patriotic, who only want to serve to make the world a better place, or to learn new skills, or because they genuinely believe dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. But that does not take away from the fact that, for good or bad, they are trained killers. People have every right to criticise soldiers for their role in war and for their actions, legal or illegal. If the Holocaust taught us anything, it’s that ‘only following orders’ just doesn’t wash.

I think this requires its own article, to reply to the various themes being addressed here.

Needless to say that I disagree with Reuben more from the point of view of nuance: criticism depends on what’s being said and who is saying it. And in this case, the group is miles off what the Left should show any sympathy with. As for criminalisation, well everyone is against that.

As for Salman, there’s a couple of things you’ve said which need to be drawn out further, and I think the best place to do it is historical analogy. More later.

Though I was aware of the message in your article Reuben, I also picked up that by the nature of your sympathies to the charge that Muslim children have been killed, which is tragic, that you may well be providing cover for the manner in which they have chosen to demonstrate.

Sure, I don’t want the state to dictate what should and should not be said in the form of protest, but perhaps what should be curbed is the proximity to a procession of mourning which these protesters have chosen to site their demonstration. Not only do I think it is counterproductive to being anti-war (though, of course, I am under no illusion that, despite being anti-war myself, I share little in the way of a platform with these oiks) I also think that the state has some responsibility to safeguard the families attending the procession from inflammatory, ad hominem comments and plaquards.

In America, with the Phelps family, they have to be a certain distance. For me, unless the protest is directed at elected representatives, the policy should be out of sight. So, in actual fact, I disagree with both the avowed and disavowed implications of this article, and scorn the fact that it doesn’t provide enough direct concern about what negative effects the I4UK demonstration will have on the wider anti-war movement, to which I’m sure most of the above, and you Reuben, support.

I freely admit that they’re separate points. My borderline pacifist argument is a world away from those being deployed by Islamist groups. But the bottom line, for me, is that soldiers are not beyond criticism just because they’re ‘risking their lives to defend the country.’ To this day, people are horrified that American hippies spat on soldiers returning from Vietnam. But what’s a bit of saliva next to My Lai? What’s a few angry words next to Fallujah?

Above comment was to Dave Semple. I’d be interested in reading your historical analogy, we’d be happy to publish if you want to write a response to our points.

“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.”

Obviously some of the elements opposing the march are exhibiting Telegraph-style knee jerk emotional patriotic reactions, and are trying to vindicate their hurt feelings via legislation – they should be given about as much time of day as a television station opposing Hugo Chavez gets broadcasting hours in Venezuela. But it’s imperative that you draw a distinction between the whiners and the pansies and the offence merchants and those who are seeking to halt the march on the grounds that Islam4UK is an organisation whose explicit aim is to establish an Islamic caliphate in the UK, which has repeatedly lionised the work of Islamist terrorists, which is, by its own admission, a “platform” for Al-Muhajiroun, which receives its funding and ideological impetus from murderers and terrorists, and which should, therefore, be prohibited (again). They don’t want freedom of speech, they are not agents for freedom of speech, they are the agents of stupidity, destruction, and terror, and they are hi-jacking liberalism to provide them with a platform for the espousal of tyranny. They can fuck off.

“..the fundamental point here – and indeed the fundamental point of the piece – is not whether the protestors rhetoric is correct or tactically useful but whether such actions should be criminalised by the state.”

Right – that’s how I interpreted the article: yes it’s morally and tactically wrong; no, it shouldn’t be criminalised.

Mardean: All that might be true, but it’s also true that Islam4UK is about as far removed al-Muhajiroun now as it’s possible to imagine, and that almost all support that organisation might once have had has disappeared. Islam4UK is little more than Anjem Choudary and at most 50 other idiots, whose main aim seems not to be to actually carry out its threats to march, but to just put the ideas out there, as it did with its supposed “March for Sharia” back in October which never took place. Choudary is to Islam what David Ike is to conspiracy theorists – a wacko even by their standards with no credentials whatsoever. If everybody just treated him as a fool, which is what is, instead of taking his mouthing off seriously then we’d probably never hear from him again. Instead it’s in the media’s own self-interest to keep flagging the self-publicist up. I say let them march if they’re really going to: it ought to be pretty hilarious to watch 10 idiots walking down Wootton Bassett high street being completely ignored.

I don’t think that Choudary is a remotely serious threat, I just think a principled distinction should be drawn between free speech in the context of individuals who wish to express a perspective on an issue and what is tantamount to giving freedom of assembly to people with violent intentions and links to terrorism. I don’t think the hopelessly inefficacious reality of ‘Andy’s intentions should have an impact on that.