Протесты, проводимые ультраправыми группами в этнически разнородных районах являются провокацией, но запрет на них повлек бы за собой нежелательные последствия. Джош Блэк рассматривает случай запрета на демонстрацию Английской защитной лиги на востоке Лондона.
Пример
Представители этнических меньшинств составляют почти 35 процентов населения Уолтам-форест, округа в восточном Лондоне, и по большей части проживают в городке Уолтамстоу. 1 сентября 2012 г. представители Английской защитной лиги, организации, которая официально выступает против исламского экстремизма, но часто обвиняется в расизме, подали в городской совет заявку на проведение демонстрации в центре Уолтамстоу. Местные жители организовали встречную демонстрацию и заблокировали их продвижение, что привело к запрету марша лиги полицией и призывам разойтись его участникам.
После несостоявшегося марша лига известила о своем намерении вернуться в Уолтамстоу позже. Местный городской совет запросил и получил распоряжение секретаря по внутренним делам, в соответствии с которым лиге запрещалось проведение пикетов перед зданиями Парламента в Лондоне, а жителям Уолтам-форест — пикетов в Уолтамстоу. Некоторые жители городка сочли такое решение несправедливым, называя попытки полиции предотвратить марши демонстрантов “постыдными нападками на местную демократию”.
reply report Report comment
People protest in order to have their voices heard, to bring awareness to their cause. I believe that we should protect the rights to march in protest of all citizens. However, the law should and does protect all citizens from acts of violence and damage too. I feel that although we should conserve everyone’s right to protest in marches, we should also take precautions in situations where citizens would likely get harmed and property get damaged. Therefore the protestors should be able to march, but have a designated route on which they walk with police constantly monitoring the march. Should something go wrong, the police could would immediately intervene and take control of the situation.
reply report Report comment
I believe this to be a more complex problem than some may think. My own belief is that we should protect the rights to march in protest of all citizens. However the rule of law should and does protect all citizens from acts of violence and criminal damage. A great number of EDL members attend these marches for the trill of getting high on drink or drugs and participating in such recreational violence and criminal damage. The whole ethos of «football hooliganism» as morphed into the new Islamaphobia. Though they may make do with any minority individual as a target of recreational hate; if there’s no Muslims at hand. We should still try to give them as much freedom of speech as possible. The EDL and the majority of the British public are feeling sorry for themselves now that we have the ‘time of austerity’ . They fear Muslims and the dreaded foreigner are costing them money; however the EDL and yobbos generically are , with great pride wasting the budget allocated for just about everything. It cost a vast fortune to deal with yobbos; don’t worry about foreign aid, worry about yobbos. We also have the other end of the problem; the «Muslim Extremist» and any other groups to whom we should give the same rights to march and protest; but with the same rules that forbid violence or criminal damage. I also emphatically believe we should have the greatest freedom press possible. I have used many web sites and news channels, that most of the British public have not bothered with; and I have learned a great deal. We will certainly see more terrorist attacks, more diversity of method, and greater longevity. It would seem to me that it takes «two to tango» as they say. Albeit the authorities have played a disingenuous and sometimes exasperating role; now we have ‘down to earth’ enthusiasts who are genuinely keen to make Britain as violent as Syria; in the name of cheap larger.