What happened to EDL?

[The USOT]

They haven't gone anywhere, unfortunately. Even a quick Google shows you that they were still marching two weeks ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09 ... 48980.html

I do love how the English Defence League needs Defence against the English XD

[Lackadaisical2]

Wow, anti-EDL protestors violate the free speech of 'fascists' how ironic.

You seem to be mistakenly under the impression that "free speech" doesn't also include the right of people who disagree to shout you down.

Invading and physically obstructing a rally goes beyond shouting down, it borders on political violence.
Oh wait.. there was that too:

"After members of the UAF and local residents held a sit down protest on the EDL’s planned route (organised via the hash tag #wearewalthamforest) around 200-300 members of the far-right group were diverted down a side road under a barrage of bottles, firecrackers and flower pots. "

(http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09 ... 48980.html)

[The UK in Exile]

You seem to be mistakenly under the impression that "free speech" doesn't also include the right of people who disagree to shout you down.

Invading and physically obstructing a rally goes beyond shouting down, it borders on political violence.
Oh wait.. there was that too:

"After members of the UAF and local residents held a sit down protest on the EDL’s planned route (organised via the hash tag #wearewalthamforest) around 200-300 members of the far-right group were diverted down a side road under a barrage of bottles, firecrackers and flower pots. "

(http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09 ... 48980.html)

thats not violating freedom of speech, thats getting pelted with bottles because your a racist.

[Nadkor]

MOSTLY because of parliamentary superiority. We cant pass a free speech law giving us the right to free speech, since any new law banning certain speech would automatically supercede it.

Again, parliamentary supremacy would mean it doesn't apply. That's the line of the government, even if I don't agree with it. If parliament passes a law against free speech, it trumps all previous treaties and laws.

That's not really the case with regards to rights, though. It hasn't been for a long time. Only the express words of Parliament (e.g. "this section is intended to be read contrary to Article 10 ECHR", or "this section is intended to repeal the common law right to freedom of expression" or words to that effect, which would come at a tremendous political cost) will be sufficient for implied repeal, which is what you're referring to, to override established rights - implication won't cut it.

See, for example, the House of Lords in Simms:

Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can, if it chooses, legislate contrary to fundamental principles of human rights. The HRA will not detract from this power. The constraints upon its exercise by Parliament are ultimately political, not legal. But the principle of legality means that Parliament must squarely confront what it is doing and accept the political cost. Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. This is because there is too great a risk that the full implications of their unqualified meaning may have passed unnoticed in the democratic process. In the absence of express language or necessary implication to the contrary, the courts therefore presume that even the most general words were intended to be subject to the basic rights of the individual. In this way the courts of the United Kingdom, though acknowledging the sovereignty of Parliament, apply principles of constitutionality little different from those which exist in countries where the power of the legislature is expressly limited by a constitutional document

For the rights could potentially be overridden by "necessary implication to the contrary" bit, see the High Court in Witham:

[t]he class of cases where it could be done by necessary implication is, I venture to think, a class with no members

Neither from a common law constitutional rights point of view nor from a post-HRA point of view would it be possible for Parliament to simply override the right to freedom of expression by banning a certain kind of speech.

In any case, the leeway given to the courts in their interpretation of legislation under s3 HRA is such that any Act of Parliament purporting to ban freedom of expression and that was found to be in breach of Art 10 ECHR could well be interpreted out of the equation by the courts. If this is absolutely not possible, then the courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility under s4 HRA, which can be politically hugely damaging for a Government - in a largely political constitution the effect of this should not be overlooked.

Or, in other words: lrn2 law

[Nadkor]

You seem to be mistakenly under the impression that "free speech" doesn't also include the right of people who disagree to shout you down.

I disagree with this.
If you drown out someones speech by shouting, you havn't given them the right to speak really.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom of people to listen to ideas and judge them for themselves.
It's the listener who loses out in those cases.

No, freedom of speech means that the Government doesn't get to stop you from voicing your opinion. It implies nothing about other people. In fact, to legally restrict the ability of people to object loudly to what you're saying would be a violation of their freedom of expression.

The only reason that you think this is a violation of freedom of expression is because you clearly do no understand what freedom of expression means and who the right actually restricts.

[Call to power]

It seems that the infamous English defense league has disappeared, they have not demonstrated in 6 months. what happened?

If only we had some sort of website with which the EDL would regularly post what it is doing and where

Who cares? Good riddance.

Antifa types probably care as they can't smash up local business and be general twats unless its a 'counter demonstration'.

They ran out of money, basically.

I thought that was just the BNP?

Again, parliamentary supremacy would mean it doesn't apply. That's the line of the government, even if I don't agree with it. If parliament passes a law against free speech, it trumps all previous treaties and laws.

Lad, I could go into correcting you but I would rather you sit and have a good think about what you're trying to argue for a moment (please do as I've got a massive headache atm and don't need your shitposting). I'm particularly interested in this as it appears to be one that involves stopping a legal demonstration because of some concept of hate speech.

Anyway, you could go back to the Bill of Rights 1689 if you want to look at a recognition for the right to free speech, yeah England has never been one to strictly write down rights but yadda yadda Human Rights Act 1998 yadda yadda. The ECHR does list limitations but rights don't exist in a vacuum and are balanced against other rights.

They were legally entitled to have their public meeting, the counter-protest was equally entitled to shout them down.

I disagree as things like laying about on streets would bring to my mind a public order offence.

As many people do, you seem to be forgetting that free speech laws and rights exist to stop the government from abridging an individual's right to free speech.

Dunno, what if some bellend starts pelting me with rocks or whatever?

[Chinese Regions]

The muslamic ray guns got them.

[Indira]

Seems they fell apart

[Nadkor]

You seem to be mistakenly under the impression that "free speech" doesn't also include the right of people who disagree to shout you down.

Invading and physically obstructing a rally goes beyond shouting down, it borders on political violence.
Oh wait.. there was that too:

"After members of the UAF and local residents held a sit down protest on the EDL’s planned route (organised via the hash tag #wearewalthamforest) around 200-300 members of the far-right group were diverted down a side road under a barrage of bottles, firecrackers and flower pots. "

(http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09 ... 48980.html)

Right, so have them prosecuted for assault.

Still not a free speech issue unless you could successfully make the argument that by not prosecuting those who attack you with force while you try to exercise your right to freedom of expression the Government has failed in its duty to protect your rights, in which it's still not really a free speech issue in the classical sense as it's more to do with the Government's failure to protect your rights on your behalf (rather than the traditional problem of the Government itself intruding on your rights).

Even in this way it's difficult to see how it would succeed, as it was a one-off (or relatively one-off) breakdown in order rather than the Government systematically failing in its duty to ensure that the EDL members could exercise their rights (as had been the case in Özgür Gündem v Turkey where ECtHR held that a state failing to protect someone from a campaign of violence in response to them exercising their right to freedom of expression placed Turkey in breach of their obligations).

So, yeah. Not a free speech issue. A criminal justice issue.

[Nadkor]

As many people do, you seem to be forgetting that free speech laws and rights exist to stop the government from abridging an individual's right to free speech.

Dunno, what if some bellend starts pelting me with rocks or whatever?

Throw them back.

Sensible policies for a happier Britain.

[Gravlen]

I disagree with this.
If you drown out someones speech by shouting, you havn't given them the right to speak really.
Freedom of speech implies the freedom of people to listen to ideas and judge them for themselves.
It's the listener who loses out in those cases.

No, freedom of speech means that the Government doesn't get to stop you from voicing your opinion. It implies nothing about other people. In fact, to legally restrict the ability of people to object loudly to what you're saying would be a violation of their freedom of expression.

The only reason that you think this is a violation of freedom of expression is because you clearly do no understand what freedom of expression means and who the right actually restricts.

Yeah, this seems to be a relatively common misconception.

[Varijnland]

You literaly have no idea "what kind of people they are".

Bunch of males with an excess of pent up aggression looking for a socially acceptable way to vent ever since the police started taking football riots seriously?

And how lucky they thought they were when they found a target against which to prove themselves real men, whilst also finding themselves free to articulate that niggling racism/xenophobia they've had at the back of their tongues for as long as they they've been alive. And they get to fly the flag of "civic responsibility" to boot!

I'm frankly shocked and appalled that women all over don't just fall at the feet of these young and handsome knights in white armour and service them there and then, now that they have nothing to fear from brown men with bigger dicks and bearing gifts of plentiful dark cloth!

That's quite accurate for the ones you see on the TV, muttering and rambling about "muslamics". For the ones the media tells you about.

[Aengeland]

They haven't gone anywhere, unfortunately. Even a quick Google shows you that they were still marching two weeks ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09 ... 48980.html

I do love how the English Defence League needs Defence against the English XD

You think they are want to be English? You think they give a shit about the English people? The UAF openly side with facsist cowardly Islamic extremist cunts such as anjem choudry and his "Islam4UK" movement, now that is what I call ironic. Sure, some of the EDL may be facsist and as thick as a plank but I don't see anyone else standing up to islamic extremism in England, but look around "here comes wonderful the UAF!! Hooray!! Kill those EDL racsist dogs!! Allahuackbar!!! Death to democracy!! Burn burn UK!!"In bold are things I have personaly heard at a joint Islamist-UAF rally in Bristol.

[North Calaveras]

Everyone here seems to not actualy know what the EDL is and what it was supposed to be, sure lots of members are in it for the violence and are generaly racsist and bullying thugs, however EDL was created as a reaction to combat islamic extremism in England (a noble cause if you ask me) and something that many people may fear to do or keep quiet about it. They are however, doing it wrong. They were not created to be racsist (they have a Sihk division as well as black members) and they want to change England's terrible justice policies regarding muslims including a case where 4 muslim women beat up another women (because she was White) and were let off because the Judge said they were not used to alcohol. It also seems that you are more likely to be attacked for condeming radical islam than you are for supporting them nowadays which is completely wrong.

This ^

They even have gay members and welcome them

[The UK in Exile]

Everyone here seems to not actualy know what the EDL is and what it was supposed to be, sure lots of members are in it for the violence and are generaly racsist and bullying thugs, however EDL was created as a reaction to combat islamic extremism in England (a noble cause if you ask me) and something that many people may fear to do or keep quiet about it. They are however, doing it wrong. They were not created to be racsist (they have a Sihk division as well as black members) and they want to change England's terrible justice policies regarding muslims including a case where 4 muslim women beat up another women (because she was White) and were let off because the Judge said they were not used to alcohol. It also seems that you are more likely to be attacked for condeming radical islam than you are for supporting them nowadays which is completely wrong.

This ^

They even have gay members and welcome them

being selectively tolerant isn't really much better than being intolerant.

[North Calaveras]

This ^

They even have gay members and welcome them

being selectively tolerant isn't really much better than being intolerant.

they addressing a real concern over there, and they seem to be the only ones doing it, i saw this documentery on vanguard, it was good and showed how bad the islamic problem is getting worse.

[Forster Keys]

being selectively tolerant isn't really much better than being intolerant.

they addressing a real concern over there, and they seem to be the only ones doing it, i saw this documentery on vanguard, it was good and showed how bad the islamic problem is getting worse.

Vanguard? :S

[North Calaveras]

they addressing a real concern over there, and they seem to be the only ones doing it, i saw this documentery on vanguard, it was good and showed how bad the islamic problem is getting worse.

Vanguard? :S

Yeah it was a show on Television that did these programs, one of them was about this very issue, they even show both sides, its pretty damn neutral.

[Forster Keys]

Vanguard? :S

Yeah it was a show on Television that did these programs, one of them was about this very issue, they even show both sides, its pretty damn neutral.

I know nothing about it. The name sounds dodgy that's all.

When it comes to these issues I don't see why you can't despise both the EDL and the Jihadists.

[North Calaveras]

Yeah it was a show on Television that did these programs, one of them was about this very issue, they even show both sides, its pretty damn neutral.

I know nothing about it. The name sounds dodgy that's all.

When it comes to these issues I don't see why you can't despise both the EDL and the Jihadists.

I don't like some of the tactics of the EDL but they gain much more of my support than the Jihadists.

At least the EDL wants to protect people, it has it's own radicals, but it's goals are pretty good.

[The UK in Exile]

being selectively tolerant isn't really much better than being intolerant.

they addressing a real concern over there, and they seem to be the only ones doing it, i saw this documentery on vanguard, it was good and showed how bad the islamic problem is getting worse.

they're the only ones doing it because no-one else is concerned.

[North Calaveras]

they addressing a real concern over there, and they seem to be the only ones doing it, i saw this documentery on vanguard, it was good and showed how bad the islamic problem is getting worse.

they're the only ones doing it because no-one else is concerned.

I disagree, I think there seeing something dangerous coming and there trying to prevent it while others don't seem to see the threat.

[Forster Keys]

I know nothing about it. The name sounds dodgy that's all.

When it comes to these issues I don't see why you can't despise both the EDL and the Jihadists.

I don't like some of the tactics of the EDL but they gain much more of my support than the Jihadists.

At least the EDL wants to protect people, it has it's own radicals, but it's goals are pretty good.

What exactly is the threat?

[Saiwania]

I don't see how the EDL is any worse than Islam4UK which advocates for Shariah law to be fully implemented in the UK.

[North Calaveras]

I don't like some of the tactics of the EDL but they gain much more of my support than the Jihadists.

At least the EDL wants to protect people, it has it's own radicals, but it's goals are pretty good.

What exactly is the threat?

Islamic extremism and the threat is poses to the British way of life for the most part(at least that's from what i understand)

it's been awhile and I don't know a ton about the EDL, but i think that about sums it up, fear of shariah law and Islamism.