So people who burn Israeli flags at anti Israel protests should go to jail too?
I nearly put that example in (or burning a Torah outside a synagogue) but second guessed myself and thought you might find it manipulative, squishy liberal that I am. But yeah, the standard is the standard.
(Also, didn’t say go to jail, I said they should see the inside of a police interview room).
Is that the standard? Maybe it’s your standard, but it certainly isn’t the standard in the US.
a) That’s OK, I’m not particularly fussed about the standard in the US as a general rule and especially in a thread with a title like this one’s. And especially especially when this branch of the conversation involved you bolding the words “in the UK” to remind everyone where we were talking about.
b) Sorry, I’d thought it was fairly clear that I was giving my own opinion about what the law (in the UK) should be rather than making descriptive statements about the law (in the UK) is, but happy to clarify.
Is it the standard in the UK that anti Israel protestors who do things like burn Israeli flags or call for a globalized version of this violent shit that I grew up with get arrested? Even if they don’t mention the specific political group “Palestine Action”?
Again, talking about what I think the standard should be not what it is but also: yes.
This is from November 2023, so before Palestine Action were proscribed (possibly even before they existed).
More than 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were detained by police after breaking away from a march that took place through London.
The Metropolitan Police said the group launched fireworks and many were wearing face coverings.
And also from earlier this year, but involving PSC rather than PA:
More than 70 pro-Palestinian protesters have been arrested in Trafalgar Square on suspicion of breaching protest conditions after demonstrators broke through a police line as they marched from a rally in Whitehall….Sixty-five were arrested over the breach of conditions, five for public order offences and arrests for assault, sexual assault and inciting racial hatred.
And also this from Oct 24
At least 17 arrests made as thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators march in London | ITV News
At least 17 arrests have been made at a pro-Palestine march in central London, where tens of thousands of demonstrators have gathered to call for a ceasefire and end to conflict in the Middle East.
The march comes ahead of the anniversary of the October 7 Hamas attacks in Israel, and the ensuing bombardment of Gaza.
Two people were arrested on suspicion of supporting a proscribed organisation, one of which included a protester wearing what appeared to be a parachute.
There were eight arrests on suspicion of public order offences, four of which were allegedly racially aggravated.
Three people were arrested on suspicion of assaulting an emergency worker, three arrested on suspicion of common assault and one person was arrested on suspicion of breaching a Public Order Act condition.
Thank you for that perfect demonstration.
If I went out, alone or with my buddies, and started marching down the street while shooting off fireworks, I would indeed be arrested even here in the Free Speech Bastion of USA, whether or not I mentioned anything about Palestine while doing it.
They broke through police lines and apparently committed some sexual assaults as well (?What the fuck is that about?). That’s what you’re comparing to someone standing on the corner burning a book or a flag? That’s completely ridiculous.
So… Two people arrested for the proscribed organization thing which is a whole separate kettle of fish… Four “racially aggravated public order offences” could be what you are talking about, so let’s grant those with an asterix… And maybe the one person who “breached a Public Order Act condition”, that’s also vague… The others were arrested for assaulting someone.
So all you’ve really provided is a bunch of examples that are totally incomparable and a handful that might or might not be similar because barely any info is provided.
Remember, the comparison is to a guy standing there burning an object, not a crowd firing off fireworks or breaching police lines.
Tehre’s also this: Two women at London Palestine protest arrested for racial hatred after chant referencing ancient massacre of Jews | LBC
A video was shared on social media yesterday of two women leading a chant about the Battle of Khaybar in 628, when Jews were killed by an Islamic army in 628, in the land that is now Saudi Arabia.
Police had asked for help with identifying two women after being made aware of the chant, and said on Sunday that they had arrested them.
Really trying quite hard to remember how I got into this. What affirmative claim do you think it is that I require to back up?
That pro Palestine protestors are being arrested for actions comparable to burning a Quran in front of a Turkish embassy while saying “Erdogan making Turkey more Fundamentalist Muslim is a bad thing”.
That sounds much closer to a direct call for violence than burning a book does. That said it’s the first proper example you’ve provided of Pro Palestine people being arrested for their speech alone (as opposed to firing off fireworks or beating up cops), and I would agree that it’s probably an example of the UK being overzealous in targeting people for speech that shouldn’t be legally actionable.
Are you saying the opposite - that they and the Quran guy both deserve to be arrested?
You would want to limit it to serious, credible threats, but yes, this seems like a decent line to draw. If there was a history of burning Qurans as a threat in the UK the way there is of burning crosses in the US, then the people defending Coskun’s arrest and sentencing might have a point. But there isn’t.
This is a counterfactual. Coskun wasn’t out in public causing legitimate fear in passers by, he was causing offence to passers by, resulting in two of them violently attacking him. In the attacker’s own words, he was not afraid, but angry that Coskun was insulting Islam.
The question is whether offensive speech should be banned, bearing in mind that to different people, ‘offensive’ includes insulting Charlie Kirk, saying “there is no God”, and a woman going out with her hair uncovered.
Dont’ remember saying that. Do remember saying yes when you asked if anti-Israeli protestors were being arrested for stuff like burning flags or calling for a global intifada. But I grant that the first cites weren’t good comparisons. For the record, there is also this:
Two men arrested after antisemitic abuse heard at Trafalgar Square rally - Jewish News
Two men have been arrested on suspicion of racially aggravated public order offences after they were heard shouting antisemitic abuse near to Sunday’s communal rally in Trafalgar Square in support of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas.
Meanwhile a man was arrested after a video was shared online of him shouting racist abuse in Whitehall, central London at the main pro-Palestine demo on Saturday.
Yeah -there’s a primie facie case that their actions do, and are intended to, intimidate and harass members of the public. On arrest and investigation, it may turn out that their actions and intent fall under the banner of legitimate political speech. Or it may turn out that they really did intend to intimidate and harass people, which is quite properly a crime.
I wasn’t talking about the specifics of the Coskun case. I was talking about the claim that because there’s no long-standing practice of hate groups burning Qurans equivalent to the KKK burning crosses, that therefore no one could legitimately feel intimidated or afraid when they witnessed someone burning a Quran.
I don’t think it matters. That would be a horrible standard to use for proscribing speech, because people are frequently irrational and can feel intimidated or afraid for no very good reason. For example, MAGA supporters right now are afraid because of people celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death, because in their view that is encouraging more assassinations.
Consider that almost any protest can cause people to feel intimidated; we certainly don’t want to ban those.
In this case, I think the fact no one witnessing the act claimed to feel afraid is a significant data point that burning a Quran is not an inherently intimidating thing to do. (Though obviously it is dangerous for the person doing the burning.)
You can arrest anyone you want slapping them with a “prima facie case” and hauling them down to the station for questioning. Seems like a very effective way for the government to have a “chilling effect” on speech they don’t like.
We have a “reasonable person” standard in law for just this very reason.
And it is reasonable, for a Muslim witnessing someone set a Quran on fire and start yelling about how evil Islam is, to feel intimidated and harassed. Like, that is an intimidating and harassing thing to do!
I think it is even more reasonable for someone sitting at a restaurant, who is surrounded by BLM protesters demanding they raise their fist, to feel intimidated and harassed.
Arrest them all!
That’s kind of inherent in powers of arrest though, isn’t it? Any government anywhere, with any power of arrest at any level of suspicion, could in theory abuse it. Bad ones do. But as we’re not going to forego the power of arrest then… I guess some sort of human rights/safeguard system which attempts to draw a line between free speech and criminal harassment while allowing prosecution of the police for wrongful arrest would seem to be the answer.
I mean, this is dependent on what form these demands take but at a certain level of physical or verbal threats and/or abuse then.. yes this could quite easily be criminal? I don’t know what your point is here.
Defending cross burnings is defending death threats.
Again if “might scare a passer by” is the standard for criminalizing speech then you do not have freedom of speech (or religion or expression generally)
Any legitimate form of freedom of speech (most especially any form that might upset the government) could conceivably scare someone.
Hell the whole Maga movement is based on being scared of stuff. Talking in Spanish. Being gay. Being trans. Wearing a headscarf. Being homeless. Cities. All legitimately causes of fear according to the current US administration.