Poppy Fascism?

[fred quimby]

Banning such a protest is essentially saying to those old soldiers "we told you that you were fighting for freedom, but we lied. Your death was pointless, because the country you fought for has taken away the freedom you fought for".

[eFestivals]

I wouldn't ban a protest... If they wanted to stand there with a banner, or have a debate, or do a march. That really doesn't bother me.

The action of burning something held very close to someones heart. Or disrespecting a silence being held in the memory or something. Isn't protest, its confrontational. There are many ways of saying I totally disagree with something while giving others the space to exercise there remembrance.

I think the notion that people went to fight in the world wars to give people the freedom to totally and utterly disrespect others is very far fetched. I know my grandfather would of found it disgusting to see poppies burnt as much as he would of found it disgusting for someone to burn the Karan, Bible, national flags whatever. Its just squaring up for a fight. Nothing more.

We have the right to protest. But we should also operate respect and understanding of others.

Disagreeing with anything that someone holds dear is by default disrespectful from the viewpoint of the person with those 'dear' (strongly held) views. Such a person might respect the right of the other to have those views, but they can't respect those views.

If what you've laid out here was followed thru on in entireity, we couldn't even have this discussion.

And while you might believe that people should have the right to honour 'their' dead, that 'right' should be universal - people die on the opposite side of any conflict - and their 'right' to honour 'their' dead however they might choose is removed by the deafening noise of the bombs being dropped on them killing even more.

You say "I think the notion that people went to fight in the world wars to give people the freedom to totally and utterly disrespect others is very far fetched", and yet the very act of fighting any war is as disrespectful to others as it can possibly get - you can't get more disrespectful than killing others.

Your view only logically holds up if Britain is 'always right' with its warring and that every combatant and 'collateral' death caused by its warring is actively supportive of their own country's wants from that war.

And that's about as ridiculous as it gets, as war is almost always made by a handful of people chasing their own greed without regard for those they make fight it for them or those who die as the result of (the most sickening phrase ever invented) 'collateral damage'.

20-ish years ago I always sought out a white poppy as an alternative to the red one, and every year I was abused for it. But never once by an 'old soldier' - some of whom commented that they respected my choice. Only ever by unthinking jingoistic morons who believed that it was wrong to recognise that there were just-as-much victims on the other side of any conflict.

The nationalistic jingoism has grown hugely since then, as the FIFA thing gets to prove (ten years ago there was an England match one day from 11/11 - not a poppy in sight).

We are becoming less respectful of the dead via that jingoism, not more so.

[eFestivals]

With Freedom comes Responsibilities surely...

Exactly!!

The responsibility to allow others the same rights - tho perhaps from an opposite view - as you wish to have for yourself.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Just to add about my views on the FIFA decision I have just put this on my Facebook status.

Just wondering what some people worldwide must be thinking of the FIFA decision to allow a national team to wear a symbol of rememberance for the people of Britain and the Commonwealth that have died in conflict. I bet Daoud Mousa, father of Baha Mousa (beaten to death by the British in an Iraqi prison), or Paddy Donaghy, brother of Gerald Donaghy (shot in the stomach on Bloody Sunday and a nail b...omb planted by police) or even Paulo Muoka Nzili (a Kenyan tortured by the British during the Mau Mau uprising) find it a little offensive. That is to name a few. Whilst I believe it important to remember our fallen, I think it just as important to remember that not everyone across the world is going to see it our way.

[eFestivals]

I'm sure my granddad who was in both wars would also say he fought for the right of people to be able to remember their loved ones for 2 minutes without some c*nt shouting at them. I'm sure he would have felt that some of the views some of these groups belive were total rubbish as well.

That might be his preference, but it was never what he was fighting for. Recognise that a preference is something different to a right.

I had a great uncle (lovely chap he was) who lost a lung in WW1 (via a gas attack and then getting shot 10 minutes after the gas attack started), and who signed up for WW2 (he was exempt from conscription because of his age and his missing lung) and got seriously wounded there too. By the averages, he should have died from both wounds.

He was always extremely humble about his doings despite those huge injuries (that basically left him an invalid for the last 40 years of his life), recognising that others gave much more than he did - their lives.

But he was also smart enough to realise that he was fighting individuals no different to him - and not the Kaiser or Hitler personally - and that their suffering was no different to his. He did not want for them to be thankful to the British for shooting at them, and had no problem at all with any hate they might have had of the British for the suffering they experienced at the hands of the British.

It's two sides of the same coin, where one side is very different only because they lost. Victor's justice is no justice at all.

Edited November 11, 2011 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

You are such ideological mess Neil you can't see the wood for the trees...

Eh?

How does me respecting people's right to peacefully protest in whatever manner they see fit make me an "ideological mess"?

The whole poppy day thing is itself a protest. I'm simply extending the idea to everyone, via the recognition that there's more than one side to death in war.

[fred quimby]

That might be his preference, but it was never what he was fighting for. Recognise that a preference is something different to a right.

Edited November 11, 2011 by fred quimby

[eFestivals]

The poppy appeal is not a protest you bellend its an appeal!

Its not peaceful to burn poppies and / or disrupt silences being held in memory of people.

You really are a mess. You out think yourself.

It's a demonstration. A demonstration of remembrance.

I should have used the word 'demonstration' and not 'protest' - but that pans out as being the same thing, which this country likes to claim is a protected freedom

And similarly, it's not peaceful for me to have suffered abuse for my own demonstration of remembrance, merely on the basis of me having a differing view of what should be remembered. And it's no different for those Muslims.

After all, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan as a response to the deaths of 53 innocents in London and 2,800 innocents in the USA does not make us the good guys, and gets to prove that those Muslims have much to remember as well as 'the British'. And unlike 'us British', they are still suffering the deaths of innocents on a massive scale, and want us to remember that andf do something differtent as a result.

Don't you think they have as much right to express their anger at the deaths of innocents being caused by the British as the British do for far fewer deaths??? I guess not.

[eFestivals]

Not sure he was fighting for the right for someone to be shouting in his daughters face while she was trying to remember him,

similarly, do you think he was fighting for his daughter to remember him in silence while the (perhaps) brothers and cousins (and certainly co-religionists) of other British citizens are bombed in their beds by the British?

There's two sides to it. That's all I'm saying.

If we say that some have less rights than others simply on the basis of thought crimes then all of those British deaths were in vain.

[fred quimby]

similarly, do you think he was fighting for his daughter to remember him in silence while the (perhaps) brothers and cousins (and certainly co-religionists) of other British citizens are bombed in their beds by the British?

There's two sides to it. That's all I'm saying.

If we say that some have less rights than others simply on the basis of thought crimes then all of those British deaths were in vain.

[eFestivals]

You been at the office bong again this morning?

How am I off my head in recognising that both sides are permitted to take a view on things and then act within the law (until yesterday ) on their views?

It's certainly closer to how the British like to (wrongly*) believe themselves to be than your take on things.

(* 'wrongly' because people like you get to show how it really is for the majority of the population - a one sided belief in Britain being infallibly better than anyone else in the world).

Edited November 11, 2011 by eFestivals

[Rufus Gwertigan]

What are you on about.

In WW2 He was fighting for his freedom and those around him against fascism. Simple.

Not sure he was fighting for the right for someone to be shouting in his daughters face while she was trying to remember him, in fact I'm sure he would say they have no right to do that, then again he was a down to earth common sense working man. I'm sure he would have been all for protests against the recent wars but not the way some of these protests have been done

[eFestivals]

Brilliantly put again Rufus. Wish I'd managed to put it so succinctly.

[fred quimby]

How am I off my head in recognising that both sides are permitted to take a view on things and then act within the law (until yesterday ) on their views?

It's certainly closer to how the British like to (wrongly*) believe themselves to be than your take on things.

(* 'wrongly' because people like you get to show how it really is for the majority of the population - a one sided belief in Britain being infallibly better than anyone else in the world).

[kaosmark2]

What makes the British dead any more important than any other soldiers who were conscripted into fighting and dying in wars?

What is the difference between allowing the demonstration on one side and a protest against Britain exerting their military might?

What makes one set of views more justified?

If people sincerely wish to wear a poppy, sincerely wish to support a soldier's charity, that is their choice. But for those who don't want to participate, that's their choice, their freedom, their right. People should be allowed to not wear a poppy with being condemned for it. The whole debacle with hassling FIFA, how will we react when other countries start doing it? What if one of the England players decided they didn't want to wear a poppy? I imagine they'd be pressured into doing it, or driven out of the team by the baying masses. The level of insistence about poppies is ridiculous, and getting worse every year. I've stopped wearing one because I don't believe it means anything now, beyond following peer pressure.

[fred quimby]

In all fairness if people fought for freedom that includes freedom of speech and freedom of protest. When one is told when and where that can happen then it is not freedom.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the disruption of rememberance services, I would say it is as best time as any for a protest to take place. Its supposed to be an occasion when everyone is united in one, so seems perfect that some people are able to show that they are not of the same mind.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

What makes the British dead any more important than any other soldiers who were conscripted into fighting and dying in wars?

What is the difference between allowing the demonstration on one side and a protest against Britain exerting their military might?

What makes one set of views more justified?

If people sincerely wish to wear a poppy, sincerely wish to support a soldier's charity, that is their choice. But for those who don't want to participate, that's their choice, their freedom, their right. People should be allowed to not wear a poppy with being condemned for it. The whole debacle with hassling FIFA, how will we react when other countries start doing it? What if one of the England players decided they didn't want to wear a poppy? I imagine they'd be pressured into doing it, or driven out of the team by the baying masses. The level of insistence about poppies is ridiculous, and getting worse every year. I've stopped wearing one because I don't believe it means anything now, beyond following peer pressure.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Rufus Gwertigan

[eFestivals]

today is not all about British people we remember all those who have fallen.

I think I only mentioned that it is disrespectful to up shouting in peoples faces while they are peacefully remembering. Or are you know saying we can't to that peacefully. As you say 2 sides.

If it's about "all those who have fallen", then why is it not permitted for all people to remember those who have fallen in the way they wish to express that remembrance?

And more than that, why is not permitted to remember those who are still 'falling', and at a hugely greater rate than Brits and being made to 'fall' by Brits?

If it was you and yours that were being killed right now, don't you think you might be angry enough about that to be shouting in the faces of those doing the killing?

You and Fish are saying "shouting in peoples faces", but that's an over-statement. But even if it was that, nothing about that stops anyone from peacefully remembering; the peace is in a person's head - while at the same time there is no peace at all for those innocents being killed by the British army.

There are two sides. Both sides have the right to make their own choice of actions, and neither should have the right to tell the other that they have no right - but that is what you're doing. The 'British' side of things is the more abhorent via that.

[Gre]

If people sincerely wish to wear a poppy, sincerely wish to support a soldier's charity, that is their choice. But for those who don't want to participate, that's their choice, their freedom, their right. People should be allowed to not wear a poppy with being condemned for it. The whole debacle with hassling FIFA, how will we react when other countries start doing it? What if one of the England players decided they didn't want to wear a poppy? I imagine they'd be pressured into doing it, or driven out of the team by the baying masses.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Gre

[kaosmark2]

because they feel some wider principle is at stake... Surely there are much better examples of the restriction to the right to do REAL protests, e.g. the massive controls over the student protests...

[eFestivals]

Surely there are much better examples of the restriction to the right to do REAL protests, e.g. the massive controls over the student protests...

the crackdown on protests is the same thing all round - some wacky idea that some protests are "good" and allowable while others are not.

The only people who are in the position to know if a protest is justified are those who get up and protest - and the fact of their protest says that it is, no matter how many disagree.

After all, if everyone agreed with something there'd be no need to have a protest in the first place.

We are talking about just remember the sacrifice someone else made (rightly or wrongly) and putting a bit of money in a bucket to help someone get over losing their legs...

We are also talking about the sacrifices some are still making, and at the hands of the British rather than for the British.

The fact of the ban put on 'Muslims against Crusaders'* gets to show clear as day (for some at least) that today is not really about remembering all victims of war but is really about only remembering those who have done this country's bidding.

(* just to make clear: my support for them goes only as far as their right to protest against the actions of British forces. There's allegations of other parts to that organisation, and nothing of my support for them is about those aspects. As far as I'm concerned, the timing of the ban makes clear that the ban is about stopping them being able to protest, and nothing to do with the alleged other parts).

[fred quimby]

If it was you and yours that were being killed right now, don't you think you might be angry enough about that to be shouting in the faces of those doing the killing?

[fred quimby]

(* just to make clear: my support for them goes only as far as their right to protest against the actions of British forces. There's allegations of other parts to that organisation, and nothing of my support for them is about those aspects. As far as I'm concerned, the timing of the ban makes clear that the ban is about stopping them being able to protest, and nothing to do with the alleged other parts).

[fred quimby]

the crackdown on protests is the same thing all round - some wacky idea that some protests are "good" and allowable while others are not.

[eFestivals]

There is a world of difference between a bunch of students wanting to take an issue to the government marching on downing street and being stopped... and a bunch of fucking c**ts shouting during two mins silence...

any protest ultimately ends up being about the publicity of the fact of the protest can get. A protest tjhat no one notices is no protest at all.

Care to tell me how much press the result of British forces actions overseas get for the other 364 days of the year?

One is constructive and has purpose... ONe is just being a nasty c**t...

Where is your condemnation of hundreds of thousands of deaths as the result of recent British actions? Don't they count as "nasty c**ts" too? And on a HUGELY greater scale than a handful of people shouting and burning poppies?

Any protest against Britain's involvement in war should be aimed at the parliament and not people like me who are just trying to remember the priced paid by these fucking awful wars. Its a totally ideological failure and its not done for protest, its don't to incite and offend.

You're trying to remember the price paid by Brits (and mostly long ago), while doing none of the same for the price being paid right now by people simply because they're not Brits.

'Muslims against Crusades' are bringing your attention to those things which you'd rather ignore or forget about.

The ideological failure is the one which believes a British life is of more value than a Muslim one. We are turning into Israel-lite, where the death of one Brit is avenged by the deaths of a massive number of others on the other side.

How inciteful and offensive would you find your daughter's death caused by her being bombed in her bed while she slept, and why do you think that others would feel different to you just because they're Muslim?

And utlitmalty, and this is the biggest crime, when people start moaning about REAL protest being stopped then its even harder to win that argument because you lot stupidly cry wolf here defending the indefensible.

Defending the indefensible is believing that some demonstrations are more worthy than others.

I am protesting against you remembering your Dad... I mean FFS ??

I am protesting against your daughter or your friends daughter or someone you don't know's daughter possibly being killed in her bed while she slept. Do please tell me why you find that so offensive.

The fact is that you only find it offensive when the protest is about someone you don't know and you don't care about. If it were really your daughter and not some Muslim that you've never met, you'd be stood by my side.