What do we want? Dunno, but we want it now!

Apparantly, arrangements are well in hand for the demo in support of free expression on the 25th, the details can be read here.  However, there is going to be a counter-demo from something called the Muslim Action Committee.  All sounds rather jolly, although my heart sank when I noticed that the organisers were asking for suggestions for suitable chants.  Oh dear, not my style at all.  And talking of style, what does one wear to a demo?  I mean, it's Town, so one supposes the old pin-striped double-breasted and highly polished black shoes would be the order of the day, but with the weather streaming in directly from Moscow plus the chance that sundry oriental gentlemen might cut up rough, I think I'd best dress for Country; stout boots, thick cords and don't forget the thermals!

I was rather taken with this from Kes in the comments to one of the posts on the organisers web site:

"After Martin Niemöller (1892—1984)

When they came for the communists, I did not speak out—
After all I was not a communist.
When they came for the socialists, I did not speak out—
After all I was not a socialist.
When they came for the filmmakers, I did not speak out—
After all I was not a filmmaker.
When they came for the cartoonists, I did not speak out—
After all I was not a cartoonist.
Then they came for me—
And there was no one left to speak out...' "

Be there!  Speak out!

Comments

[N.I.B.]

So, what to wear up in 'The Smoke'?

Get with the 'program' mate! Didn't your chums tell you it's all Sunnahs, beards and Burkahs up there these days?

[David Duff]

Not sure about that! I crawled past Trafalgar Square last Saturday attempting to get to the Opera House and passed the dregs (I use the word advisedly) of the AWL demo. I was reminded of that old story concerning one of Noel Coward's chums who was plucked to safety from the beach at Dunkirk and on disembarkation immediately made for the Savoy cocktail bar where he was met by Coward's coterie and when asked what it had been like, remarked, "My dears, the noise, the heat, the smell - the people!"

[Abu Shuayb]

Its a shame that the oppressors portray themselves as the victims.

Those grotesque caricatures were nothing more than the first steps towards the genocide of Muslims in Europe.

First comes demonisation, then comes discrimination, then comes fear.....

Europeans haven’t learnt from it's history. The same arguments were used against the Jews, and look what we had.

[Abu Shuayb]

When they came for the Muslims, I did not speak out (but helped prepare their graves)

-After all I was not a Muslim

[David Duff]

Welcome aboard this site, Abu, and I do mean 'welcome'.

I think you miss the point of next Saturday's demo. I, and many others, will be there to add our puny weight in defence of *your* liberty to say what *you* like, within the law, even if (perhaps I mean, especially if) it is silly nonsense like "Those grotesque caricatures were nothing more than the first steps towards the genocide of Muslims in Europe."

What they were, precisely and exactly, were obnoxious and offensive insults, but suffering such things is the price you pay to enjoy freedom of expression. It means, I must be patient and grit my teeth when you write that cartoons are the beginnings of genocide but make no mention of what flying aircraft into office blocks might presage!

Your second comment:
"When they came for the Muslims, I did not speak out (but helped prepare their graves)
-After all I was not a Muslim"
is equal nonsense and deeply offensive as well. I *am* speaking out and will be doing so in common with others next Saturday. Where will *you* be?

[anon]

but you just did mention aircraft and offices didn't you......couldn't help yourself eh?

[David Duff]

No, 'anon', let me try and explain this slowly and carefully to you; the subject of that clause in my sentence was the "you" in "when you write", that is, my interlocutor not me.

Now go away and write out 100 times "Why, when I turn round suddenly, do I see people giggling?"

[anon]

Better use of punctuation, for example commas at the beginning and end of the clause, would have removed that ambiguity. Actually I think the error, initially, was the comma after "means" and that error was compounded by the lack of punctuation in the rest of the sentence. For example, quotation marks around the words you attribute to your interlocutor wuld have been one way of resolving the issue. You do get irritable when people post things you don't like, don't you? And suffer from just a touch of pomposity? Maybe?

[Andy M]

Wow, anon, you're a real piece of work. A touch of pomposity? Take a look at what you wrote and imagine Maggie Smith reading it out in an Edinburgh accent.

Works, doesn't it?

[Andy M]

Abu, how about this:

First come planes.

Then come bombs on the trains.

We retaliate with... pictures.

No wonder you're scared!

[Larry Teabag]

Quite right Andy M. We've never so much as laid a finger on an innocent Muslim.

[anon]

Andy

It does indeed! And that was rather the effect aimed for because of Mr Duff's criticism of my own punctuation in a perfectly polite post on another thread - which, sin of sins, omitted a capital letter and didn't, apparently, have sufficient punctuation.....

Miss Brodie of Morningside (in her prime)

[David Duff]

I am happy, 'anon', to confess to my share of pomposity if and when you own up to your propensity for what I can only call 'smart Alecness'. I should add that normally I never correct people's grammar being all too aware of the famous equivalence between motes and beams!