From Newsgroup: alt.buddha.short.fat.guy

Perhaps the strangest thing about the Unite the Kingdom rally was just
how unremarkable it felt. There were no mass chants calling for the
death of particular groups, no calls for the eradication of foreign
countries, and no flags of terrorist groups or tyrannical theocracies
waved in the crowd. Nobody cited scripture to urge the slaughter of
another people, nobody waved terrorist symbols, and nobody I saw during
the entire day covered their face.

We live in such peculiar times that this is what set the march apart
from the dozens of others which have descended on the streets of London
over the last couple of years, totally unchallenged rCo even protected rCo
by the police and our government. Yet this outlier was the first march
Keir Starmer decided to speak out against since taking office as Prime Minister, threatening police action and the full force of the law
against those involved, and pulling out all the stops to block foreign speakers from entering the country at the last minute. Of all the
political protests werCOve witnessed since Labour won the general election
rCo and werCOve witnessed many rCo this was the one he chose to obstruct repeatedly. This was the hill he chose to die on.

And just in case anyone had forgotten what the other type of march looks
like, they handily held one just around the corner so we could compare
and contrast. The far-left omnicause supporters took to the streets
waving their PLO and Iranian flags rCo the ones representing the Islamic Republic regime, not the sun-and-lion version indicating solidarity with
the Iranian people. Some were even sporting Al-Qassam Brigades red
triangles, a symbol made popular by the terrorists when marking out
targets for death in videos.

Unite the Kingdom focused mostly on domestic issues, British society and Christianity. Mostly the crowd waved Union flags, St GeorgerCOs crosses
and saltires. The other march featured few no Union flags, but a sea of
red, white, green and black PLO flags.

Much of the traditional media coverage referred to these two marches as
the rCyfar-rightrCO march and the rCypro-PalestinerCO march, representing another imbalance in how the marches were treated. The left-wing march
was afforded the courtesy of being described as it wished to be, but not
one single person I met on the other one would have identified with the rCyfar-rightrCO description. Both descriptions are questionable, because any march truly supportive of Palestinian Arabs would surely call for the
end of Hamas and other terrorist groupsrCO stranglehold over their lives,
and any far-right rally worth its salt would forbid the presence of
black people, Jews or migrants of any type rather than proudly welcoming
them and featuring them on stage.

When Keir Starmer declared Tommy RobinsonrCOs march rCya reminder of what werCOre up against in the battle of our valuesrCO, many taking part would
have agreed with him wholeheartedly. But though he predicted those on it
would be rCypeddling hatred and division, plain and simplerCO, I saw nothing of the sort. Far from rCyhate speechrCO, I heard plenty of love speech rCo love for nation, for unity, for freedom. That political and social
outlook might not be to everyonerCOs taste, but after constant and unchallenged rCyglobalise the intifadarCO and rCyfrom the river to the searCO mobs paraded through our cities and past synagogues, it seemed utterly disingenuous of Starmer suddenly to declare that he rCywill act decisively against hatredrCO and rCyuse the full force of the law when that hatred manifests as violencerCO just when his leadership of his own party and the country itself is at its weakest. Perhaps itrCOs a coincidence that the
UTK march openly challenges LabourrCOs positions and actions in
government, and that its most popular spontaneous chant was, once again, rCyKeir StarmerrCOs a wankerrCO. No, thererCOs no way thatrCOs what inspired him
to act tough all of a sudden.

In the end, the reports that he has told friends he would finally step
down as leader and PM came after this mass popular display of disgust at
his record from a crowd made up of many varied types of BritonsrCoworking class, middle class, young, old, white, black, poor, rich, you name it.

The point is that most of what I heard at the UTK event was basic
common-sense talk yourCOd hear around the country in pubs, shops, homes or anywhere, really. ItrCOs not always sophisticated political theory or solution-focused strategy, but it does reflect the hopes and fears of a massive portion of our society.

Street protests and marches arenrCOt the place for technical politics or intellectual debate. TheyrCOre rough around the edges, and you can always
find crazies and nasties in them if you look hard enough. But their
overall mood and tone are a useful reflection of their participantsrCO collective vibe. The actions of their leaders in the run-up to and
during the protests are good indicators, too, of their intentions.
Robinson has spent weeks putting out videos urging attendees to keep
their faces uncovered, not to rise to provocations from anyone, and to
meet any conflict with a smile. If his background bothers our political
class so much, they could at least acknowledge the responsible way in
which he called for peaceful political dissent.

Compare that with the constant wrangling and arguing of the anti-Israel
march organisers, who repeatedly forced their rallies on the rest of us
over a period of more than two years, and who were eventually found
guilty in court of breaching Public Order Act conditions designed to
prevent disruption to a local central London synagogue. In that case,
the judge ruled that a speech delivered from the stage by Ben Jamal of
the Palestine Solidarity Campaign constituted unlawful incitement
because it actively suggested, persuaded and induced protestors to
bypass the police perimeter.

The real test for any government is whether it can apply the same
standard to dissent it dislikes as to dissent it finds convenient. On Saturday, that standard looked painfully absent: one set of
demonstrators treated as a threat to the nationrCOs moral order, warned against and subjected to live facial-recognition policing, while the
other was granted the softer language of protest even after years of intimidation, disruption and open extremism. If Starmer wanted to talk
about rCythe battle of our valuesrCO, he might have begun by explaining why patriotism alarms him more than the politics of revolutionary violence.
Now it seems it may have dealt him the final blow in his slow motion
downfall.


Jonathan Sacerdoti
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2