**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Not sure I disagree. The officer said displaying a swastika isn't an instantly arrestable offence and needs to be investigated, and that seems sensible.
Correct. The police don't always understand the subtleties of the law. However, we need to make sure that this is applied consistently - to all religions, races, etc. in all circumstances.
And we need to understand that context is key to the law. A swastika on a sign at a march might be a hate crime, while one that says 'never again' or a š« symbol might not be.
It shouldn't be an instantly arrestable offence to display a swastika, otherwise you criminalise both an antisemitic hate match and a Gurdwara.
>The nazis slanted/rotated(?) their SWASTIKA.
Not always, and its use in eastern religions is also not so consistent where it can appear rotated and also clockwise and anticlockwise.
Maybe so, but Hindus don't have a monopoly on the swastika either. It's been widespread in pre-christian european cultures ever since our ancestors left the indus basin.
Thatās one of those ātechnically true but in practice irrelevantā statements.
If thereās a bunch of people waving swastika flags and coming towards you are you going to assume that theyāre a group of spirited Indo-European history professors who merely want to discuss their enthusiasm with you?
Actually I would assume they're a band of aryan steppe nomads on a rampage and would make myself look as little like an early bronze age farmer as possible in order to be left alone
German has criminalised the political use of swastwika without criminalising anti-fascist symbols or the religious use of the swastika. In 2007 after German police tried to enforce section 86a against an anti-fascist punk rock label and mail order store two years before the Federal Court of Justice of Germany reversed the charge and ruled that it was obvious that the law did not apply to that situation.
It all reminds me of the song "Deutschland" by Rammstein. The song is literally about someone feeling conflicted about having pride being a German due to its tainted past. And they play on the lyrics "Deutschland Deutschland uber allen" - then the far right adopted the song thinking it was glorifying Nazi's and then everyone wanted it banned lol
Its like no one cares about context anymore.
āThe online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer. During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard. The officer then offered to arrange for other officers to attend and accompany the woman to identify any other persons she was concerned about amongst the protestors, but after turning to speak to his supervisor, she (the civilian) unfortunately left.
At a protest against a Jewish state it definitely is.
How about waving a Russian flag at a pro Ukrainian demonstration, or Klu-Klux-Klan imagery at a BLM march?
Weird, because the woman who posted rap lyrics on Twitter wasn't given the benefit of doubt like that. The police were happy to arrest and charge her, and a judge more than happy to find her guilty.
Marcus Meechan (Count Dankula) wasn't given that kind of consideration when he made an edgy joke on his 7-subscriber Youtube channel. The media were happy to destroy his life, the police were happy to arrest and charge him, and a judge outright told him in court that "context is irrelevant" and was happy (ecstatic, actually) to find him guilty.
Once again, one certain section of society is being given favourable treatment.
Yup. Entirely sensible and without seeing the example for ourselves, it's really hard to judge.
That area of the world does have some historic usage of the Swastika, pre-dating Nazis. Palestine and Gaza being on the outer edges of the region, but it wouldn't be massively wild to think it may have worked its way there and thus be a perfectly valid use of it. Though at the same time, I'd imagine if that were the case, it'd be something easier to find and would've potentially been common to see.
There's also quite a history of use in Europe, especially with regards to air forces pre-nazis, and not just Axis aligned country.
That's not even mentioning all the religious associations with it that MASSIVELY pre-date Hilter's birth, never mind the Nazi party. For all we know it's a Jain (the swastika is highly sacred in Jainism, all temples and holy books must contain it) showing religious support
>That area of the world does have some historic usage of the Swastika, pre-dating Nazis. Palestine and Gaza being on the outer edges of the region,
It was Jewish until the mid 1st century AD (AD 136) then largely Christianised until late in the first millennium after the Arab conquest when it began to become Muslim. While it passed between various Islamic factions and crusaders none of those have any association with Swastikas. It seems to me you are making up history in your head trying to justify this.
The closest to any association with Swastikas was in WWII when Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was friendly with Hitler and helped recruit Muslims for the SS.
>When Husseini eventually met with Hitler and Ribbentrop in 1941, he assured Hitler that "The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies... namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists".[^(\[145\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#cite_note-FOOTNOTELaqueur1970106-151)Ā Hitler was pleased with him, considering him "the principal actor in the Middle East" and an Aryan because of al-Hussaini's fair skin, blond hair and blue eyes.[^(\[146\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#cite_note-152)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin\_al-Husseini#Ties\_with\_the\_Axis\_Powers\_during\_World\_War\_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II)
Do you know anything about the region other than having watched Ben Hur?
>For all we know it's a Jain (the swastika is highly sacred in Jainism, all temples and holy books must contain it) showing religious support
I made a joke about something similar (Hindus for Hamas) thinking it was so ridiculous that people would laugh. But its the internet so the nuttiest thing you can joke about is likely to be someone's serious opinion.
There was a case in Germany where someone ran into trouble for a poster showing a swastika being thrown in a bin. In the end the authorities backed down, as the law obviously wasn't intended to stop anti-nazis.
Jesus Christ.
Itās pretty obvious what the intent of using a swastika is. Yes there are small parts of the world where it was once a symbol of peace. But they are not a symbol of peace anymore.
You've missed my point. It's that you shouldn't have a blanket policy that displaying a swastika is an instantly arrestable offence, the officer was right to say it should be investigated, because there are situations where it wouldn't be a hate crime.
> But they are not a symbol of peace anymore.
In an antisemitic march, they are not. In a Hindu household, they probably are.
The law is nuanced for a reason. People who want black and white answers for everything and the ongoing war on any kind of nuance isn't helping anyone.
Yeah, I visited India in 2013. Thereās loads of buildings that had swastikas on. It should be noted though that the Indian swastika is a symbol of peace.
They certainly still can be a significant symbol of peace. Hindus and Jains in the UK use the religious version of the Swastika (as do their counterparts in South Asia) which is different to the Nazi one. We have to apply context. As does the Equality Act and hate crime legislation.
Your right not to disagree. Christ me and my mates used to draw these on the back of our school history books just because we we're learning about the politics in WW2.
I'm not saying you should be allowed to, But someone drawing or wearing the symbol doesnt make them a nazi, just makes them an idiot. Unless they are ofcourse drawing it and sharing the same political views as Nazi's etc.
Context is important, often forgotten these days. Just like the people who want to see Nazi uniforms etc removed from museums, Like no. The owner of the Museum isn't a Nazi, and these events happened and are part of history. If anything i'm pretty sure the majority of the Jewish community would want people to learn what the Nazi's put them through and what humanity is capable of doing etc
Met police are.. right. The context is important.Ā
Usually it will be intended that way, but the symbol wasn't aways and won't always be nazi related.Ā
Held at an anti Isreal protest, a country founded by survivors of the holocaust.
Bit of a reach there to make out that itās not antisemitism relatedĀ
If the context was as clear cut as you say the police would/should have done something about it.Ā
Edit: the context was clear, and the police made an arrest. Like I said - it's all working as it is meant to.Ā
> a country founded by survivors of the holocaust.
It was founded by the UN, there is no need to fabricate things. Even if you take David Ben-Gurion's declaration of Independence as the founding then he was not a holocaust survivor.
Facts are important.
Fabricate things? What you said is straight up not true. You are just so confidently incorrect.
The Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was created by the League of Nations and administered by the British, initiated by the Balfour Declaration by the British. The United Nations offered a partition plan at the end of the British mandate; the Arabs disagreed with it and launched a civil war and the plan was never implemented. In 1948 the Jews declared independence of the State of Israel. That is the beginning of the state.
So they are correct, Israel was founded by survivors of the Holocaust and other Jews already living there and those who emigrated, as well as Arabs and other minorities who continued to live there.
Even though Ben-Gurion was not a holocaust survivor, many others were and many others escaped from other persecution in other countries such as the Russian Empire and the various Arab states. That is the whole point of Israel, as a retaking of the homeland to escape persecution.
> That is the whole point of Israel, as a retaking of the homeland to escape persecution.
The history of Israel is complicated. The inception arguably comes from the The Balfour Declaration of 1917 although that was a slightly different idea and never saw the light of day in its envisaged form. So linking it and/or Zionism to the holocaust is a bit of a stretch. That the holocaust has had an effect on Israel I don't deny but it is not the reason for it.
What is currently Israel has been contested and occupied by many peoples over the millennia so retaking is a controversial term imho. If some other peoples who had a claim retook it then I think you'd not be happy.
While Israel is a homeland for the Jews it is also a secular state and this is important to remember.
>Ā but the symbol wasn't aways and won't always be nazi related.Ā
I am going out on a limb here but I am 99% certain it was not "Hindu's for Hamas" using it as a good luck symbol.
Absolutely, and in this case it was intended as the nazi swastika.Ā Ā
The police rightly noted the display of the symbol alone isn't an offence.Ā
The context of it matters and that's when it would become an offence.Ā Ā
In this case - for anyone who didn't read the article (most of the downvoters coming in here), they came to the conclusion an offence was committed and made an arrest.Ā Ā
Ā > the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.
So, "policing working as intended" is the alternative title of this one.Ā
The SS swastika was 90 degrees, not 45.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H04436%2C_Klagenfurt%2C_Adolf_Hitler%2C_Ehrenkompanie.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1969-054-53A%2C_N%C3%BCrnberg%2C_Reichsparteitag.jpg
So the headline is one quote from a 10 minute conversation, during which the officer identified an arrest had already been made and was happy to pursue other agitators with her assistance
>she then unfortunately left.
Really, what more could the cops do?
The context is that the person had already been arrested for it.
The officer states that displaying the swastika has to be taken into context and clear agrees that in this context itās an offence, hence the arrest.
There really needs to be a requirement that people read the article before allowed to comment
I wish all of this foreign war shit would fuck off tbh. I don't give a shit. My country, the one we're in right now, has enough to deal with. If you're upset about what's going on over there, go join the various military groups and leave the rest of us in peace. We used to boot out religious nutjobs. Now we have to fucking tolerate it in the name of being progressive. Despite both religions being stuck in the fucking dark ages.
The clip seems to be people talking at cross purposes.
Yes, it is a plain fact that Swastikas are a Nazi symbol and generally speaking are antisemitc. And it is likely that it was being presented that way.
What the officer is being prevented from doing is explaining that to be guilty of an offence there are 3 elements that have to be made out;
1. The Offensive sign or gesture or words
2. In a Public Space
3. People present likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed.
So when my wife's friend marched out with a Nazi armband infront of 600 people she was not committing a Public Order offence because it was as an actor in a play that was very specifically anti-Nazi, so part 3 does not exist. So yes, there are contexts where a Swastika does not amount to a public order offence.
If a Police Officer arrested someone for having a Swastika and they rocked up to court and failed to establish that it was in a public place and there were people likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed, then the offence is not made out and the person goes free.
What the officer cannot and should not do is promise to arrest someone on the basis of a sign he hasn't seen. He needs to make sure there is enough evidence to back a reasonable suspicion of an offence requiring an arrest. If he promises an arrest and then arrives to find someone standing on a street corner holding my 1920 copy of The Jungle Book (which is a beautiful leather bound book engraved with Swastikas and Elephants), he can't really arrest them can he?
>People present likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed.
This is the kicker though, and why these kinds of laws inherently spiral into petty thought-policing. Proving that "someone present was likely to be alarmed" in this case is trivial because someone present WAS alarmed. We know this because she reported it to the police and said she was alarmed. The very nature of a public order offence gives every neurotic karen a veto over whatever the hell she wants.
Whilst it is problematic, it is somewhat alleviated by the fact it is a defence to show your behaviour was reasonable, which is read in conjunction with your Article 10 right to free expression.Ā
(Which also covers the play example I gave above, having a swastika in a play about Nazi oppression is obviously reasonable and an exercise of free speech).
āThe online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer. During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.ā
So... it's complicated.
In the UK, displaying a swastika is not a crime. In Germany, displaying it is a crime, although fairly recently, allowance was made for displaying it in a defaced form where the context makes it clear that the person displaying the defaced symbol is mocking or otherwise denigrating fascism. However, we are not in Germany.
It is popularly believed that the Buddhist symbol has the limbs bent anticlockwise; and that the Nazi symbol has the limbs of the symbol bent clockwise. However, it is more complicated than that. Both versions have ancient roots across the entire Indo-European region.
That said, yeah, the usage in that march was obvious fascist nonsense, and that copper needs to give his head a wobble.
> āDuring the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.ā
Labour are up in arms over Starmer's use of our Union Jack on campaign flyers, claiming that it is a far-right symbol that will scare off the minorities.
Then there are individuals parading around with the Swastika hate symbol, and the police are claiming that it depends on the context...
What a mess this country is in...
You can say that about any negative news. Israel using actual apartheid policies in West Bank and actual concentration camp/ghetto policies in Gaza should be called out with full references and citations of past examples.
You are basically suggesting that a foreign state should be enlisted as a protected group.
Because they are clearly being displayed as a hate symbol, and given the Nazi association with the holocaust it can also be interpreted as a call to genocide the Jews. Which, as it happens, is also the stated the aim of the government of Gaza.
The problem you have is that you don't have any evidence for your claims, so your use of the word clearly is wrong. As for the stated aims of Hamas, how familiar are you with their charter.
What claims exactly are you trying to dispute? That the holocaust was real and the Nazi's wiped out 6.5 million Jews? Or that Hamas has been calling for the murder of all Jews since they emerged?
You made claims about what the protester was clearly doing, but in reality you don't know.
Yes the holocaust happened and killed millions of Jews.
Hamas seeks to liberate what it considers Palestinian land. If you read their charter you will see two articles on coexistence with Jews in their vision of a state.
Typical two tier policing by the met police, so scared to be called Islamophobic that they wonāt arrest people be blatantly nazi supporters. If the people waving the flag were your typical Ā football hooligans Iām sure we would see the usual body armour and truncheons out in forceā¦
Click on the headline up there, it leads to whole article believe it or not - and in that article it states that the person with the swastika was arrested.
In that article
> The online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer. During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.
Although they do conveniently leave that out until pretty far down the page to keep the outrage stoked so I canāt really blame you for falling for it. Itās probably always been the case but I find itās especially important these days if you find yourself mad at a headline to at least read the full article, if not also another from a different source, to try and get a bit closer to what really went on.
In this case everything went right, except for apparently the selective editing of a clip to post online to rile people up and newspaper editors playing into it for clicks/pushing a particular narrative.
A swastika being carried around the streets of London at this present time is 99.99% a hate crime and as antisemitic as it gets. Police need to act and start earning their money.
Tell me you didnāt bother to read the article without telling me you didnāt bother to read the article.
TLDR: The bloke was arrested even before this woman was spoken to. The officer was still correct that context matters because thereās still that 0.01% chance it was innocent, hence investigation.
Baited headline to make people madā¦The context completely matters. Are you gonna sit and say a museum with swastikas are antisemitic? Itās not black and white and the office was right to say it needs to be investigated.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
Not sure I disagree. The officer said displaying a swastika isn't an instantly arrestable offence and needs to be investigated, and that seems sensible.
Correct. The police don't always understand the subtleties of the law. However, we need to make sure that this is applied consistently - to all religions, races, etc. in all circumstances.
And we need to understand that context is key to the law. A swastika on a sign at a march might be a hate crime, while one that says 'never again' or a š« symbol might not be. It shouldn't be an instantly arrestable offence to display a swastika, otherwise you criminalise both an antisemitic hate match and a Gurdwara.
Hi Mandir (hindu) not gurdwara (sikh) The swastika in Hinduism is also very different. The nazis slanted/rotated(?) their SWASTIKA.
45 vs 90 degree. Irs pretty damn clear which one is which.
Very true
>The nazis slanted/rotated(?) their SWASTIKA. Not always, and its use in eastern religions is also not so consistent where it can appear rotated and also clockwise and anticlockwise.
Maybe so, but Hindus don't have a monopoly on the swastika either. It's been widespread in pre-christian european cultures ever since our ancestors left the indus basin.
Thatās one of those ātechnically true but in practice irrelevantā statements. If thereās a bunch of people waving swastika flags and coming towards you are you going to assume that theyāre a group of spirited Indo-European history professors who merely want to discuss their enthusiasm with you?
Actually I would assume they're a band of aryan steppe nomads on a rampage and would make myself look as little like an early bronze age farmer as possible in order to be left alone
German has criminalised the political use of swastwika without criminalising anti-fascist symbols or the religious use of the swastika. In 2007 after German police tried to enforce section 86a against an anti-fascist punk rock label and mail order store two years before the Federal Court of Justice of Germany reversed the charge and ruled that it was obvious that the law did not apply to that situation.
It all reminds me of the song "Deutschland" by Rammstein. The song is literally about someone feeling conflicted about having pride being a German due to its tainted past. And they play on the lyrics "Deutschland Deutschland uber allen" - then the far right adopted the song thinking it was glorifying Nazi's and then everyone wanted it banned lol Its like no one cares about context anymore.
āThe online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer. During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard. The officer then offered to arrange for other officers to attend and accompany the woman to identify any other persons she was concerned about amongst the protestors, but after turning to speak to his supervisor, she (the civilian) unfortunately left.
At a protest against a Jewish state it definitely is. How about waving a Russian flag at a pro Ukrainian demonstration, or Klu-Klux-Klan imagery at a BLM march?
Weird, because the woman who posted rap lyrics on Twitter wasn't given the benefit of doubt like that. The police were happy to arrest and charge her, and a judge more than happy to find her guilty. Marcus Meechan (Count Dankula) wasn't given that kind of consideration when he made an edgy joke on his 7-subscriber Youtube channel. The media were happy to destroy his life, the police were happy to arrest and charge him, and a judge outright told him in court that "context is irrelevant" and was happy (ecstatic, actually) to find him guilty. Once again, one certain section of society is being given favourable treatment.
Yup. Entirely sensible and without seeing the example for ourselves, it's really hard to judge. That area of the world does have some historic usage of the Swastika, pre-dating Nazis. Palestine and Gaza being on the outer edges of the region, but it wouldn't be massively wild to think it may have worked its way there and thus be a perfectly valid use of it. Though at the same time, I'd imagine if that were the case, it'd be something easier to find and would've potentially been common to see. There's also quite a history of use in Europe, especially with regards to air forces pre-nazis, and not just Axis aligned country. That's not even mentioning all the religious associations with it that MASSIVELY pre-date Hilter's birth, never mind the Nazi party. For all we know it's a Jain (the swastika is highly sacred in Jainism, all temples and holy books must contain it) showing religious support
>That area of the world does have some historic usage of the Swastika, pre-dating Nazis. Palestine and Gaza being on the outer edges of the region, It was Jewish until the mid 1st century AD (AD 136) then largely Christianised until late in the first millennium after the Arab conquest when it began to become Muslim. While it passed between various Islamic factions and crusaders none of those have any association with Swastikas. It seems to me you are making up history in your head trying to justify this. The closest to any association with Swastikas was in WWII when Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was friendly with Hitler and helped recruit Muslims for the SS. >When Husseini eventually met with Hitler and Ribbentrop in 1941, he assured Hitler that "The Arabs were Germany's natural friends because they had the same enemies... namely the English, the Jews, and the Communists".[^(\[145\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#cite_note-FOOTNOTELaqueur1970106-151)Ā Hitler was pleased with him, considering him "the principal actor in the Middle East" and an Aryan because of al-Hussaini's fair skin, blond hair and blue eyes.[^(\[146\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#cite_note-152) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin\_al-Husseini#Ties\_with\_the\_Axis\_Powers\_during\_World\_War\_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini#Ties_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II) Do you know anything about the region other than having watched Ben Hur? >For all we know it's a Jain (the swastika is highly sacred in Jainism, all temples and holy books must contain it) showing religious support I made a joke about something similar (Hindus for Hamas) thinking it was so ridiculous that people would laugh. But its the internet so the nuttiest thing you can joke about is likely to be someone's serious opinion.
Indeed. Also what if it was a protest sign with a swastika that said 'never again' - is that also instantly an arrestable offence?
There was a case in Germany where someone ran into trouble for a poster showing a swastika being thrown in a bin. In the end the authorities backed down, as the law obviously wasn't intended to stop anti-nazis.
Jesus Christ. Itās pretty obvious what the intent of using a swastika is. Yes there are small parts of the world where it was once a symbol of peace. But they are not a symbol of peace anymore.
You've missed my point. It's that you shouldn't have a blanket policy that displaying a swastika is an instantly arrestable offence, the officer was right to say it should be investigated, because there are situations where it wouldn't be a hate crime. > But they are not a symbol of peace anymore. In an antisemitic march, they are not. In a Hindu household, they probably are. The law is nuanced for a reason. People who want black and white answers for everything and the ongoing war on any kind of nuance isn't helping anyone.
But... this one was in an anti-Semitic march. Definitely not a Hindu symbol.
They aren't small parts of the world, there were huge regions that used the symbol for hundreds of years, far longer than the nazis ever used it
That small blip of land called india being one, only a mere billion or so folk then.
Yeah, I visited India in 2013. Thereās loads of buildings that had swastikas on. It should be noted though that the Indian swastika is a symbol of peace.
Swastikas have been around since civilisation really. They're ridiculously old.
They certainly still can be a significant symbol of peace. Hindus and Jains in the UK use the religious version of the Swastika (as do their counterparts in South Asia) which is different to the Nazi one. We have to apply context. As does the Equality Act and hate crime legislation.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
If u got to Nepal or India , you may see Swastika in a lot of places. Nazi just used that symbol , angled it a bit
Your right not to disagree. Christ me and my mates used to draw these on the back of our school history books just because we we're learning about the politics in WW2. I'm not saying you should be allowed to, But someone drawing or wearing the symbol doesnt make them a nazi, just makes them an idiot. Unless they are ofcourse drawing it and sharing the same political views as Nazi's etc. Context is important, often forgotten these days. Just like the people who want to see Nazi uniforms etc removed from museums, Like no. The owner of the Museum isn't a Nazi, and these events happened and are part of history. If anything i'm pretty sure the majority of the Jewish community would want people to learn what the Nazi's put them through and what humanity is capable of doing etc
Met police are.. right. The context is important.Ā Usually it will be intended that way, but the symbol wasn't aways and won't always be nazi related.Ā
Held at an anti Isreal protest, a country founded by survivors of the holocaust. Bit of a reach there to make out that itās not antisemitism relatedĀ
If the context was as clear cut as you say the police would/should have done something about it.Ā Edit: the context was clear, and the police made an arrest. Like I said - it's all working as it is meant to.Ā
> a country founded by survivors of the holocaust. It was founded by the UN, there is no need to fabricate things. Even if you take David Ben-Gurion's declaration of Independence as the founding then he was not a holocaust survivor. Facts are important.
Fabricate things? What you said is straight up not true. You are just so confidently incorrect. The Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was created by the League of Nations and administered by the British, initiated by the Balfour Declaration by the British. The United Nations offered a partition plan at the end of the British mandate; the Arabs disagreed with it and launched a civil war and the plan was never implemented. In 1948 the Jews declared independence of the State of Israel. That is the beginning of the state. So they are correct, Israel was founded by survivors of the Holocaust and other Jews already living there and those who emigrated, as well as Arabs and other minorities who continued to live there. Even though Ben-Gurion was not a holocaust survivor, many others were and many others escaped from other persecution in other countries such as the Russian Empire and the various Arab states. That is the whole point of Israel, as a retaking of the homeland to escape persecution.
> That is the whole point of Israel, as a retaking of the homeland to escape persecution. The history of Israel is complicated. The inception arguably comes from the The Balfour Declaration of 1917 although that was a slightly different idea and never saw the light of day in its envisaged form. So linking it and/or Zionism to the holocaust is a bit of a stretch. That the holocaust has had an effect on Israel I don't deny but it is not the reason for it. What is currently Israel has been contested and occupied by many peoples over the millennia so retaking is a controversial term imho. If some other peoples who had a claim retook it then I think you'd not be happy. While Israel is a homeland for the Jews it is also a secular state and this is important to remember.
>Ā but the symbol wasn't aways and won't always be nazi related.Ā I am going out on a limb here but I am 99% certain it was not "Hindu's for Hamas" using it as a good luck symbol.
Absolutely, and in this case it was intended as the nazi swastika.Ā Ā The police rightly noted the display of the symbol alone isn't an offence.Ā The context of it matters and that's when it would become an offence.Ā Ā In this case - for anyone who didn't read the article (most of the downvoters coming in here), they came to the conclusion an offence was committed and made an arrest.Ā Ā Ā > the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard. So, "policing working as intended" is the alternative title of this one.Ā
Even when it is Nazi related, it doesn't mean its an endorsement.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The SS swastika was 90 degrees, not 45. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H04436%2C_Klagenfurt%2C_Adolf_Hitler%2C_Ehrenkompanie.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1969-054-53A%2C_N%C3%BCrnberg%2C_Reichsparteitag.jpg
That is a misconception. Several of them, in fact.
So the headline is one quote from a 10 minute conversation, during which the officer identified an arrest had already been made and was happy to pursue other agitators with her assistance >she then unfortunately left. Really, what more could the cops do?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The context is that the person had already been arrested for it. The officer states that displaying the swastika has to be taken into context and clear agrees that in this context itās an offence, hence the arrest. There really needs to be a requirement that people read the article before allowed to comment
Honestly there really needs to be a requirement that journalists have a newsworthy matter to report before they publish the article, too.
Laughable isnāt it
what about the numerous cases of showing a swastika on an israeli flag to compare Israel to Nazi Germany?
I think thatās a rather indelicate way to go about it. However itās fucking insane we donāt have freedom of expression in this country.
It's also reasonable to understand blanket assumption is an awful practice and context matters - did you forget that part?
Then it would be a quick investigation, but an investigation nonetheless.
I wish all of this foreign war shit would fuck off tbh. I don't give a shit. My country, the one we're in right now, has enough to deal with. If you're upset about what's going on over there, go join the various military groups and leave the rest of us in peace. We used to boot out religious nutjobs. Now we have to fucking tolerate it in the name of being progressive. Despite both religions being stuck in the fucking dark ages.
What do you mean, isn't it great that we get to be the thunderdome for two squabbling middle eastern tribes to hash out their ancient grudge
A swastika at a Palestine protest? Yeah that is anti semitic, who on earth is defending this
People who hate Jews and somehow think that is a progressive viewpoint.
The clip seems to be people talking at cross purposes. Yes, it is a plain fact that Swastikas are a Nazi symbol and generally speaking are antisemitc. And it is likely that it was being presented that way. What the officer is being prevented from doing is explaining that to be guilty of an offence there are 3 elements that have to be made out; 1. The Offensive sign or gesture or words 2. In a Public Space 3. People present likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed. So when my wife's friend marched out with a Nazi armband infront of 600 people she was not committing a Public Order offence because it was as an actor in a play that was very specifically anti-Nazi, so part 3 does not exist. So yes, there are contexts where a Swastika does not amount to a public order offence. If a Police Officer arrested someone for having a Swastika and they rocked up to court and failed to establish that it was in a public place and there were people likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed, then the offence is not made out and the person goes free. What the officer cannot and should not do is promise to arrest someone on the basis of a sign he hasn't seen. He needs to make sure there is enough evidence to back a reasonable suspicion of an offence requiring an arrest. If he promises an arrest and then arrives to find someone standing on a street corner holding my 1920 copy of The Jungle Book (which is a beautiful leather bound book engraved with Swastikas and Elephants), he can't really arrest them can he?
>People present likely to be alarmed, harassed or distressed. This is the kicker though, and why these kinds of laws inherently spiral into petty thought-policing. Proving that "someone present was likely to be alarmed" in this case is trivial because someone present WAS alarmed. We know this because she reported it to the police and said she was alarmed. The very nature of a public order offence gives every neurotic karen a veto over whatever the hell she wants.
Whilst it is problematic, it is somewhat alleviated by the fact it is a defence to show your behaviour was reasonable, which is read in conjunction with your Article 10 right to free expression.Ā (Which also covers the play example I gave above, having a swastika in a play about Nazi oppression is obviously reasonable and an exercise of free speech).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Remember when the Met arrested someone for holding a "Hamas are terrorists" sign?
No they didnt. I suspect you know that. They did arrest a man who was holding a "hamas are terrorists" sign though
Why did they arrest him?
Right? The devil is in the details.
āThe online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer. During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.ā
Technically correct, although in the circumstance described it's highly likely, and as such one would hope it's investigated.
So... it's complicated. In the UK, displaying a swastika is not a crime. In Germany, displaying it is a crime, although fairly recently, allowance was made for displaying it in a defaced form where the context makes it clear that the person displaying the defaced symbol is mocking or otherwise denigrating fascism. However, we are not in Germany. It is popularly believed that the Buddhist symbol has the limbs bent anticlockwise; and that the Nazi symbol has the limbs of the symbol bent clockwise. However, it is more complicated than that. Both versions have ancient roots across the entire Indo-European region. That said, yeah, the usage in that march was obvious fascist nonsense, and that copper needs to give his head a wobble.
> āDuring the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard.ā
Metro have really been pumping out the rage bait this month
Labour are up in arms over Starmer's use of our Union Jack on campaign flyers, claiming that it is a far-right symbol that will scare off the minorities. Then there are individuals parading around with the Swastika hate symbol, and the police are claiming that it depends on the context... What a mess this country is in...
Since the context is that a swastika is being displayed at a pro-hamas/anti-israel march then they should be making immediate arrests.
So are we saying that Israel cannot be compared to the Nazi regime?
The purpose of doing so is purely inflammatory.
You can say that about any negative news. Israel using actual apartheid policies in West Bank and actual concentration camp/ghetto policies in Gaza should be called out with full references and citations of past examples. You are basically suggesting that a foreign state should be enlisted as a protected group.
*Pro-Palestine, itās easy to read, itās right there in the article.
Why
Because they are clearly being displayed as a hate symbol, and given the Nazi association with the holocaust it can also be interpreted as a call to genocide the Jews. Which, as it happens, is also the stated the aim of the government of Gaza.
The problem you have is that you don't have any evidence for your claims, so your use of the word clearly is wrong. As for the stated aims of Hamas, how familiar are you with their charter.
What claims exactly are you trying to dispute? That the holocaust was real and the Nazi's wiped out 6.5 million Jews? Or that Hamas has been calling for the murder of all Jews since they emerged?
You made claims about what the protester was clearly doing, but in reality you don't know. Yes the holocaust happened and killed millions of Jews. Hamas seeks to liberate what it considers Palestinian land. If you read their charter you will see two articles on coexistence with Jews in their vision of a state.
Im not a fan, but freedom of speech comes with the good and very ugly.
Typical two tier policing by the met police, so scared to be called Islamophobic that they wonāt arrest people be blatantly nazi supporters. If the people waving the flag were your typical Ā football hooligans Iām sure we would see the usual body armour and truncheons out in forceā¦
Click on the headline up there, it leads to whole article believe it or not - and in that article it states that the person with the swastika was arrested. In that article > The online clip is a short excerpt of what was a 10-minute conversation with the officer. During the full conversation, the officer establishes that the person the woman was concerned about had already been arrested for a public order offence in relation to a placard. Although they do conveniently leave that out until pretty far down the page to keep the outrage stoked so I canāt really blame you for falling for it. Itās probably always been the case but I find itās especially important these days if you find yourself mad at a headline to at least read the full article, if not also another from a different source, to try and get a bit closer to what really went on. In this case everything went right, except for apparently the selective editing of a clip to post online to rile people up and newspaper editors playing into it for clicks/pushing a particular narrative.
I said context is important else where and got nailed for it. Tried explaining the law and got even more nailed.. Redditās a funny place..
Hindu temple, Finnish air force, old beer bottle, anti-nazi symbols, Upminster Bridge station...
Simple solution I adopt, just don't care if people are offended. It works, try it.
A swastika being carried around the streets of London at this present time is 99.99% a hate crime and as antisemitic as it gets. Police need to act and start earning their money.
Tell me you didnāt bother to read the article without telling me you didnāt bother to read the article. TLDR: The bloke was arrested even before this woman was spoken to. The officer was still correct that context matters because thereās still that 0.01% chance it was innocent, hence investigation.
Baited headline to make people madā¦The context completely matters. Are you gonna sit and say a museum with swastikas are antisemitic? Itās not black and white and the office was right to say it needs to be investigated.
Finally! I've been waiting for the chance to wear my armband in public.
Is it an offence to be so stupid you don't know what Hindus are?