At best I could see a big march... then a long 100 metre gap with the UKIP group in the middle surrounded by police and SWP/Anti-UKIP supporters... followed by another big march.
"Hope not hate" throwing (metaphorical) bricks at gay people attending a pride march because they support the "wrong" political party.
I was simply using the term 'community' as plural rather than specific singular, in the same way as i would refer to 'the Tories' or 'the Catholics' etc.
Seems there are dissenters among their ranks.
Posted a quote in post #30 if you want to read it in full;
I doubt it. Not given the well publicised crap UKIP members have come out with in the past about gay people etc. I don't think this is the best thing for them to do, but I can u derstand them being a bit reticent about UKIP being particularly LGBT friendly, gay members or not.
I can too, but I feel that the best way to encourage and enable people to understand others better is to include them into those groups or discussions (whatever is applicable).
I don't see why. There is a long thread on Politics on this and, has been made clear, the decision has been made because of the risk of protests from other marchers (and outside groups who dislike UKIP).
Many LGBT people, including me, actually disagree with the decision, despite understanding the difficult choice that was made and why safety of the marchers (including UKIP people) and the volunteer stewards was a compelling argument.
If anyone thinks that London Pride Committee is representative of the views of all LGBT people then I guess they might think less of the entire community - however they would be a bit dim to do so... much as it would be a bit dim to think that all UKIP members were homophobic because some of them have made homophobic comments.
This safety argument is the most worrying thing about the whole situation. In the long term it makes the world very UNsafe if people give in to the threats of violence.
Ultimately it should be a police matter. Whoever issued the threats should be prosecuted and UKIP (who I don't even like) should be able to march as originally intended.
The mayor has firmly come down on the side of inviting UKIP and since his office is paying the grant hopefully the organisers will see sense
I think it's a really complicated issue for a whole bunch of different reasons, and anyone on either side saying "the answer is obvious" is being wilfully blind.
I think this argument is probably exactly what Ukip wanted - I don't believe they wanted to join in good faith, and I think that should be taken into consideration.
This safety argument is the most worrying thing about the whole situation. In the long term it makes the world very UNsafe if people give in to the threats of violence.
Ultimately it should be a police matter. Whoever issued the threats should be prosecuted and UKIP (who I don't even like) should be able to march as originally intended.
The mayor has firmly come down on the side of inviting UKIP and since his office is paying the grant hopefully the organisers will see sense
Yes public safety in these events is ultimately the responsibility of the Police. However it does seem the organisers have ended up between a rock and a hard place as the threats came from within LGBT.
This from last week;
The UK Independence Party was granted an official place to march in the annual parade LGBT parade for the first time earlier this week.
But the announcement was not welcomed by some activists and Pride participants, who presented a 1,600-name petition seeking to stop Ukip being represented on the march at the end of the month.
Petitioners have threatened sit-ins or other direct action to disrupt the parade if Ukip takes part and the organisers are discussing the issue with the sponsors, PinkNews reported.
This safety argument is the most worrying thing about the whole situation. In the long term it makes the world very UNsafe if people give in to the threats of violence.
Are they threats of violence? I may have missed it (there's been a LOT of posts about this here and in politics) but I don't think I've actually seen that reported anywhere.
Yes public safety in these events is ultimately the responsibility of the Police. However it does seem the organisers have ended up between a rock and a hard place as the threats came from within LGBT.
This from last week;
Hmmm, still not getting what's so difficult. Threats of violence do not belong anywhere in a civilised society.
Are they threats of violence? I may have missed it (there's been a LOT of posts about this here and in politics) but I don't think I've actually seen that reported anywhere.
The way Pride have been going on about the safety of the volunteer stewards being paramount and that was the sole reason for banning UKIP I assumed that meant violence. But if it's not threats of violence then I really don't get what the reason is that they are being banned. The statement they've given is complete politician's answers.
They certainly aren't making themselves clear at all and rightly coming on for criticism.
And even if some people do not like the UKIP view on gay marriage etc surely in a civilised society they can turn their backs, jeer or ignore them rather than being aggressive. Maybe I'm expecting too much of people though...
The way Pride have been going on about the safety of the volunteer stewards being paramount and that was the sole reason for banning UKIP I assumed that meant violence. But if it's not threats of violence then I really don't get what the reason is that they are being banned. The statement they've given is complete politician's answers.
They certainly aren't making themselves clear at all and rightly coming on for criticism.
And even if some people do not like the UKIP view on gay marriage etc surely in a civilised society they can turn their backs, jeer or ignore them rather than being aggressive. Maybe I'm expecting too much of people though...
Well they've been careful to avoid mentioning violence but i expect the organisers would be concerned about the implications of "or other direct action to disrupt."
It's certainly guaranteed to turn public opinion against them. People will begin to see the LGBT community in a very different light now.
Seriously? Anybody who sees a whole group of people differently because of the decision of a few event organisers is a bloody idiot. It suits your agenda though I guess, any opportunity to speak negatively of gay people.
Sounds rather like left-wing liberalism dominating. But who will don the cape and save Britain from Brussels, UKIP or homosexuals and transsexuals? I dunno, I can't put a **** paper between them.
Sounds rather like left-wing liberalism dominating. But who will don the cape and save Britain from Brussels, UKIP or homosexuals and transsexuals? I dunno, I can't put a **** paper between them.
The thing is I think the exclusion of UKIP is anything but liberal. Smacks of authoritarian controlling left wing.
Seriously? Anybody who sees a whole group of people differently because of the decision of a few event organisers is a bloody idiot. It suits your agenda though I guess, any opportunity to speak negatively of gay people.
Pity you never bothered to read the rest of the thread.
Discrimination is perfectly acceptable towards some groups in this country it seems.
If UKIP (or anyone else) were to hold a march and then banned LGBT people from attending on the grounds of 'safety' the screams of outrage would be absolutely deafening.
It reminds me of the sheer hypocrisy of politically 'right on' folk defending the more repulsive homophobic and misogynistic aspects of Islam.
They would not last five minutes in any Islamic shithole you care to name.
LGBT activists and organisers of Londons Gay Pride march have banned UKIP from taking part........on 'safety grounds'.
This is despite UKIP's strong lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) members' wing – and the fact that David Coburn, their only Scottish MEP, is homosexual.
Parade bosses said the decision was made to reject Ukip's application "in order to protect participants and ensure the event passes off safely and in the right spirit".
Gay Pride organisers have welcomed Tory party members to join them, as well as the Catholic church.
Discrimination is perfectly acceptable towards some groups in this country it seems.
If UKIP (or anyone else) were to hold a march and then banned LGBT people from attending on the grounds of 'safety' the screams of outrage would be absolutely deafening.
It reminds me of the sheer hypocrisy of politically 'right on' folk defending the more repulsive homophobic and misogynistic aspects of Islam.
They would not last five minutes in any Islamic shithole you care to name.
Yet the irony is that gay people will often defend Islam to the hilt. A religion which is anti gay to its core.
Yet the irony is that gay people will often defend Islam to the hilt. A religion which is anti gay to its core.
there was an islamic lbgt movement but it dissolved
While Al-Fatiha worked to combat homophobia within Muslim communities, it also felt it faced the challenge of seeking to avoid provoking an Islamophobic reaction among non-Muslims.
After the organization's founder, Faisal Alam, stepped down, subsequent leaders failed to sustain the organization. It began a process of legal dissolution in 2011.
i can see how the bib would be highly frustrating and diversional.
Comments
"Hope not hate" throwing (metaphorical) bricks at gay people attending a pride march because they support the "wrong" political party.
Interesting image. (:()
i missed that post there.
Thank you.
I can too, but I feel that the best way to encourage and enable people to understand others better is to include them into those groups or discussions (whatever is applicable).
I agree, but watch this space?
.
Ultimately it should be a police matter. Whoever issued the threats should be prosecuted and UKIP (who I don't even like) should be able to march as originally intended.
The mayor has firmly come down on the side of inviting UKIP and since his office is paying the grant hopefully the organisers will see sense
It will have been a UKIP activist trying to stir up a bit of trouble no doubt. They want more rights than anyone else.
I think this argument is probably exactly what Ukip wanted - I don't believe they wanted to join in good faith, and I think that should be taken into consideration.
This from last week;
Are they threats of violence? I may have missed it (there's been a LOT of posts about this here and in politics) but I don't think I've actually seen that reported anywhere.
Hmmm, still not getting what's so difficult. Threats of violence do not belong anywhere in a civilised society.
The way Pride have been going on about the safety of the volunteer stewards being paramount and that was the sole reason for banning UKIP I assumed that meant violence. But if it's not threats of violence then I really don't get what the reason is that they are being banned. The statement they've given is complete politician's answers.
They certainly aren't making themselves clear at all and rightly coming on for criticism.
And even if some people do not like the UKIP view on gay marriage etc surely in a civilised society they can turn their backs, jeer or ignore them rather than being aggressive. Maybe I'm expecting too much of people though...
Seriously? Anybody who sees a whole group of people differently because of the decision of a few event organisers is a bloody idiot. It suits your agenda though I guess, any opportunity to speak negatively of gay people.
The thing is I think the exclusion of UKIP is anything but liberal. Smacks of authoritarian controlling left wing.
Pity you're so obsessed with lgbt people.
If UKIP (or anyone else) were to hold a march and then banned LGBT people from attending on the grounds of 'safety' the screams of outrage would be absolutely deafening.
It reminds me of the sheer hypocrisy of politically 'right on' folk defending the more repulsive homophobic and misogynistic aspects of Islam.
They would not last five minutes in any Islamic shithole you care to name.
+1
.
.
.
So does that mean the LGBT members of ukip are also banned?
Yet the irony is that gay people will often defend Islam to the hilt. A religion which is anti gay to its core.
there was an islamic lbgt movement but it dissolved
i can see how the bib would be highly frustrating and diversional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Fatiha_Foundation