The Prime Minister considers it ‘completely inappropriate’ for Muslims to demonstrate in Wootton Bassett to remind the wider world of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No harm in considering something inappropriate but there would be great harm to my mind if the planned demonstration were to be censored. The protest march would offend the families of soldiers killed and injured says Gordon Brown; but offence is not a reason to forbid such events – offence is subjective (we have been here before in earlier blogs) and what offends you may not offend me in the slightest. So why should you be able to prevent me from doing or seeing or hearing what is inoffensive?
More pertinently, there are several landmark rulings mainly from the US and Canada on the notion of offence and the inalienable right to freedom of expression. In one case a Supreme Court Judge ruled that neo-Nazis had the right to march in an area predominantly occupied by Holocaust survivors. The rationale provided by the court was that inhabitants of the town had every opportunity to avoid the well-publicised march (draw the curtains, turn of the tv and radio etc) and therefore avoid any personal offence.
If our efforts in Afghanistan are truly to do with promoting democracy (of which freedom of expression has to be the cornerstone) then perhaps we should begin by allowing the peaceful expression of hurt, discontent, even anger by whoever feels it. It has been persuasively argued that to prevent such expression only condemns such feelings to more dangerous and violent action.
You make a pertinent point about the war in Afghanistan supposed to be about ‘democracy’ and freedom of speech by implication. If there was anything in this sham, the march would be allowed.
Orangemen march through Catholic districts !
As soon as I heard of this banning on the news I knew there would be a blogpost about it.
I am shocked and saddened to learn that a Minister of the Crown even has the authority to ban a gathering outside of times of national emergency. Who gave him this authority?
I also cannot help but feel it is counterproductive. How else can the public know just how deeply unpleasant these people and their views are if they are silenced by the state? And what does that say about us as a country?
I’ve not heard much support for banning the march from servicemen and their families themselves. Perhaps they understand the importance of freedom a bit better than our Prime Minister does.
The Prime Minister considers it ‘completely inappropriate’ for Muslims to demonstrate in Wootton Bassett to remind the wider world of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I suppose the question needs to be asked as to whether that is the true reason for the proposed (or ‘talked about’) protest?
Happy New Year !!
As for the march, I heard Anjem Choudhary [sp?] talking to Justin Webb this morning on Today. You make a pertinent point, but I think in allowing them to make a protest one should ask the question, ‘Why not in Swindon?’ or even in London.
Even Westboro Baptist Church have to carry out their ‘God Hates Fags’ protests against American military funerals at a ‘safe distance’ since the First Amendment does not necessarily give them the right to interrupt a funeral in progress.
So I think it is possible to say to ‘Islam4UK’ that they are allowed to protest with certain conditions. This raises the vexed question of the ‘preconditions’ on protest in the environs of Westminster which were a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
But one does have to consider ‘public order’. I share your concern about this since Alan Johnson may be just thinking about jumping on a bandwagon, and doesn’t want to lose the votes of thousands, if not millions, of Daily Mail readers. However if the past conduct of similar events is not taken into account, and the police find themselves handling a violent incident which doesn’t necessarily involve the ‘peaceful protesters’ but bystanders whipped up into a frenzy, we could rue the decision.
Or does this just lead slowly but surely to the Chinese style ‘protest areas’ we saw during the Olympics ? Answers on a postcard..
[actually, having read this back I’m worried I’m falling into the ‘Freedom of speech is not an absolute trap’ which leads to the scenario seen in Ireland where the law on blasphemy is just being extended. Tricky]
Orangemen march through Catholic streets with the blessing of Government !
They are talking about banning the march because it has “potential to cause public disorder”, rather than simply because it may offend people. The question is whether this is being used as a way to justify censorship.
Today the trial of a similar group of protesters began:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8439541.stm
They are accused of “using threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress.”
I am always uncomfortable with the idea that a march can be banned because it has “potential to cause public disorder”.
That is effectively punishing the marchers for the lack of restraint that might exhibited by the onlookers.
If there is potential for public disorder, then the march should be permitted – and the onlookers subjected to the ban from watching, and being so offended that they feel the need to be disorderly.
I suspect that if the march goes ahead, then the residents of the town will ignore it, and the streets will be packed full of “rent a mob” protesters bussed in from all over the country – only slightly outnumbered by the media who turn up to watch the event.
Can I come in here? I’m with Baroness D’Souza on this one. the problem Jonathan is that protests are always banned on the apparently rational grounds of preventing public disorder rather than on grounds of stopping people saying what may be considered offensive. As long as they express their views peacefully and within the law then those that don’t like the message can shut their ears. I can’t see why not in Wootton Bassett either; it’s an odd choice but they are presumably targeting those who have chosen to join the armed forces, a legitimate group to which to express their anti-war views. I ought to add that I’m not necessarily opposed to having our troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, I find the arguments for and against it being in our best long term strategic interests very difficult to call, but I am happy that others with more secure views should make them known. Of course I also defend the PM saying what he thinks too although how why he chose the word ‘inappropriate’ is puzzling.
Iam quite certainly in the good company of noble B D’Souza and Murphy, and nobody else.
On a completely different tack, I have just written a short note on a gas and oil pipe line from the Caspian to the Indian thru Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Strategically it is a sound objective.
What is the ‘huge investment’ in Afghanistan doing for the beleaguered people of that country.
The railway building of the 19thC saw the deaths of thousands for the sake of connecting up the world to itself.
A pipeline thru those two countries of Afgh and Pakistan would command huge transit fees and a regular income for guarding them as well.
It would also reduce the commanding prices of Saudi oil geographically.
Instead of footling with death marches and anti-demos, with which I do in principle agree, can we not set an agenda for creative use of engineering skill which would ring warmth and wages to millions in Afgh and Pakistan?
Nearly all West European gas comes via Russia now from Central Asia. YOURS too.
Why argue about (pardon my language)&&&&&&&
Wootton Bassett when creative thought on endeavors to leave the world a better place rather than a worse one, might be so much more valuable?
I appreciate the Noble ladies’ polite comments!
Carl Holbrough: Orange parades are restricted/rerouted commonly enough.
As Jonathan shows with his example the laws against ‘threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour’ already give a frighting degree of power to prevent protest and free expression. No one supports incitement to actual violence but rather as with the incitement to hatred of ‘whatever groups the government has thought of this week’ legislation the law simply fails to properly distinguish between deeply offensive/insensitive comments and incitement to murder etc. Sadly parliament has continued to expand the areas and subjects that are criminalised, banned, restricted or censored. The reality is parliament postures about free speech but every time there is a hard case they fail to stand up and be counted (collectively not individually)
On a small scale this happens all the time, the police use prevention of a ‘breach of the peace’ pretty much as carte blanche for any irritant with little recourse against their actions.
Mr. Choudary and his organisation are, I believe, on evidence I have seen, guilty of treason therefore the March should not be allowed.
The Treason Act 1351 has since been amended several times, and currently provides for four categories of treasonable offences, namely:
“when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir”;
“if a man do violate the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir”;[5]
“if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King’s enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere”; and
“if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King’s justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices”.
Peaceful protest against a war is one thing giving succour to the Nations enemies is entirely different. It is treasonable by helping those who kill and maim those who represent this Nation. If these men do indeed support insurgency then they ARE traitors to the Nation, it`s democracy and freedoms.
If the march were to take place and if it were seen in anyway to provide succour or be in support of militants, it provides a great boost to the BNP and widens a divide that is growing.
Freedom of speech, of liberty and justice are represented by the coffins carried through Wooton. To allow people who would burn our flag, which represents all of us and is far more than just a piece of material would be a travesty and possibly instigation of racial/religious hatred. Every man woman and child should be prepared to die to defend our Nation and it`s freedom, the streets of Wooton Basset bear testament to those that have. To allow this march is to allow those who defend our enemies to spit on the ground of our dead sons and daughters.
In a democracy such as ours we have a process if you wish to change the country, get elected, go to Parliament. Do not voice treason in our streets, do not throw the freedom this country gave you back in the faces of it`s people. We have Muslims in our services who will fight for this Country, to march against them is to be a traitor to all that is held dear by all religions and creeds of this nation.
Freedom of speech and liberty is not and never should be a right to commit treason or reason to voice treachery against brothers and sisters who died to give you those freedoms.
The reporting smacks of “None killed in small earthquake…”.
All the worthy words above, and then some, will not stop a significant number being angry. The PMs choice of words were designed to chime with voters: it is an election year, worse is to come.
Of course it is irrational, but that’s where we are.
Very heartening to have all your liberal comments – happy New Year to all.
Incitement is a tricky issue – when does hate speech or threat flip into intent to cause criminal damage?
The clue is in the context in which the threats or offence take place. In the case of Wootton Bassett while it is true that it has become an iconic village and thus is seen by some as sacrosanct in preserving the memories and sacrifice made by UK soldiers – it is also true that the inhabitants of Wootton Bassett could avoid any offence by simply not turning up to the proposed Muslim march – much as has been suggested by Baroness Murphy.
Ian Visits makes a telling point – the preservation of public order is too often an excuse to ban what is uncomfortable and too often the demonstrators are drawn into violence by onlookers.
It would be easier to say this is all very complicated and it is only common sense to disallow such offensive behaviour BUT we do so at our peril. What might be the next ‘easiest’ thing to do?
I failed in a ballot today to get in a topical oral question for Thursday on precisely this issue. I wanted the Government to tell the House what it planned to do.
‘If our efforts in Afghanistan are truly to do with promoting democracy’
I’ll certainly do some inciting Baroness with the greatest of pleasure.
If the Baroness or anybody else believes that presence in Afgh has anything whatsoever to do with democracy, they are utterly deluded.
OK!
It is about Central Asian oil and Gas, and
the guaranteed delivery of it to your back door.
Caspian oil and gas.
We heard and hear very little about the Soviet /Russian domination of Central Asia, whilst some were Soviet republics in their own rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmachi_movement
The Taliban is nothing new. There have bandits in Central Asia ever since the Russians over ran it, in the 1920s.
The difference is that US globalism is not concerned with mere imperialist purchase and sale of trinkets; it is concerned with ECONOMIC control and power in all the former -Stan countries, mainly to do with the extraction of oil at the cheapest possible price for the world markets at the highest possible profit.
Afghanistan just happens to be where the Bandits are based, not Basmachi now but Taliban.
This reminds me that democracy is really just another word for herding cattle.
I wonder about the media coverage of such an event, were it to take place. How much time, if any, would be devoted to exploring the concerns of the would-be protesters over civilian deaths, etc (assuming this to be the real point of their proposed action), and how much would be devoted to the much more sensational, trivial and local conflict over whether the march should happen at all, and worse how everyone feels about it.
I would certainly agree with Gar Hywel that we should be investing in Afghanistan to enable smaller industries, as well as major ones to do with mining and constructions, to develop. The ‘war’ will be won when people have realistic prospects of jobs and themselves oust the Taleban.
This is becoming a debate about the reasoning and legitimacy of the war in Afghanistan when it should be about respecting our servicemen. The men and women whose blood stains the soil of Afghanistan, who followed orders whether they agreed or not with the war. The ordinary peoples children who won`t be home anymore who gave up their lives for this country and it`s freedom.
It`s not about gas or oil, it`s about blood and respect for that blood. It`s about the families who deserve respect from this Country for giving the ultimate sacrifice. Wootton Basset has become sacred soil, it is our boys and girls funeral path.
To you it maybe just another street, just another town……. just another soldier. For others it is a place where respect is shown for the families of brave men and women who died, perhaps in great pain with great loss to the family for your freedom.
No, it`s not about oil or gas, or jobs for the Afghans. It`s about blood, sacrifice, respect for the Union flag, respect for the dead and the grieving families.
I can’t believe you all are so surprised and shocked by this turn of events. Britain’s commitment to free speech is abysmal at the best of times and this government has taken steps to ensure that no such right exists at all.
After all, when “threatening, abusive or insulting words and behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress” are made illegal, then the justification for preventing a protest on the grounds that it will cause offense is perfectly legal. Why do the Brits still cling to some semblance of traditional liberalism long after their elected leaders have taken steps to purge all such ideas from the law? And further, how can the lords feign outrage at such a turn of events without looking like they are just ignorant of the law?
Carl Holbrough – there can be no debate about the respect shown by the people of Wootton Basset to those brave soldiers who have died in battle and I trust that this village represents the feelings of millions. However, it must also be just that those civilians who have died can also be mourned and respected? If Wootton Bassett is chosen as the stage for this expression it may be offensive to some – but this is NOT a reason to ban it.
B – don’t forget that the House of Lords recently upheld the right to freedom of expression in rejecting the Government’s wish to ban offensive speech against gays and lesbians. The reasoning was similar: hateful as such speech is, it cannot be made a criminal offence on the basis of offence alone.
My Lady, I have no wish to stop a peaceful protest about innocents killed whatever their Nation.
Wootton Basset has been chosen by Mr. Choudary and his followers for a particular reason. His organisation Islam4UK does not represent ordinary Muslims, it does appear to be an extremist organisation with links to terrorist groups. Please read from the following Link Progressive British Muslims.
http://www.pbm.org.uk/press/20091002islam4uk.htm
Hundreds of thousands of ordinary British Muslims know what this organisation represents and want to stop it. Yet liberal parliamentarians seem blind to the trouble this would cause, not only for Wootton Bassett but for Muslims in general.
Think what you are saying by stating it`s just freedom of speech to commit treason. Kids no more than 18 lay down their lives daily so you will be safe in Britain, yet you wish to give the people who shoot them and blow them up a platform ? Would you give followers of Hitler, of the IRA the same ?
My Lady, Wootton Basset is sacred, as I said before as a place of repatriation for our dead, British dead coming home, being mourned by people in the streets. Does Wootton Basset have the same noble state in Afghan hearts and minds ? I think not.
It is sad that Afghan innocents are killed daily and a waste of life but ask the parents of those killed if they wish to come to Wootton Basset to mourn ?
To allow this, possibly terrorist, organisation to demostrate in Wootton Basset is spitting in eye of every family of every serviceman and woman of this Nation. Please do ask how they feel and I cannot be certain because I haven`t. The media circus surrounding such an event, I promise, would gift the BNP thousands of votes. It will cause disgust many senior Service members and result in violence in our streets.
This organisation does NOT want to mourn, please my Lady look at the evidence from ordinary Muslims who do not deserve the backlash that such a demonstration will cause.
Baroness,
Don’t go out of your way to congratulate yourself on upholding the right to criticize homosexuality. That is an empty victory when Britain has seen an unprecedented war on photography, the wholesale criminalization of protest, and when it is currently prosecuting a group of men for, as far as I can tell, saying true but impolite things to returning soldiers.
Finally you claim that the recent hate speech legislation shows that Britain is not criminalizing speech on the basis of its ability to cause offense. This is clearly false! The law itself is a restriction on speech because it criminalizes speech which ‘stirs up hatred’ (whatever that means). All the lords manged to do was to exempt “the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices” from being considered as part of the ‘stirring up’ of hatred. This is a Pyhrric victory at best. In fact it isn’t clear at all that if a person simply said “I think homosexuals are disgusting and I urge you to feel the same way” his statement would not be considered a crime. The law, even with the exceptions you mention, will have a chilling effect on speech and will probably force some people to defend their right to speak in a court of law after being arrested. If this is what you want to call ‘free speech’ or a ‘commitment to liberalism’ go ahead, but the rest of the world knows better.
In fact I know a great many people in the US who are urging their representatives to end the ‘special relationship’ with the UK since they don’t want their country to be seen to endorse the UK’s slide into a police state- shared values indeed!
The problem about taking them thru WB is that they can scarcely take the coffins (empty or otherwise)by helicopter since the shortage of helicopters in Afgh was what precisely may have caused their deaths!
Incitement is a tricky issue – when does hate speech or threat flip into intent to cause criminal damage?
Hopefully not merely when the police decide that it is so.
There are a good many evangelical ministers who preach hate on a Sunday morning and go home to a very pleasant lunch, as will everybody else. He may only ever thump the pulpit, unless he has boxed or played rugby, in which case his valor may have got the better of his discretion at some time, without being criminal damage!
The war in Afgh is about the exploitation of
Caspian Oil and gas reserves, at minimum cost to the petrochemical concerns.
Transnational pipeline transit costs can be very good to the countries concerned.
Afgh harbors Bengashi (bandits) the same difference as the Pirates off Somalie/Yemen.
they have to be dealt with for the sake of the safety of our winter warmth and your (not mine) petrol costs.
The Taliban today may be comprised of as many disaffected nationalities of the Muslim world as was the case when they were rounded up and taken to Guantanamo 8 years ago.
A good many Uighurs from secessionist W.China, and all the other Central Asian nationalities as well.
I have been running a campaign for several years on behalf of the ECO economic Community Organisation of Central Asia, and I
am still quite certain that the Afgh problems would be considerably defused by EEC style sponsorship of it for a good many years, by the US/EU/NATO, and even by China whose economic cause would now be helped by it.
If there are Muslims who live within a few miles of WB and whose relatives they know to have been killed by British forces, then they surely have the right to encourage their kinsmen not to
resist the strategies and goals of US/NATO/British/other troops, in Afgh.
If they feel strongly enough they also have the right to go to Afgh/Pakistan, and do whatever they want to do ,when they get there.
They do NOT have the right to campaign, either implicitly or explicitly, to persuade
other Muslims to go to those countries to do what they think should be done to prevent their relatives being killed BY British/US forces.
Mocking the funeral corteges of the dead, however worthy or unworthy they may seem to be to them, by making an ANTI-Demonstration,
can ONLY be considered an INCITEMENT to do what is wrong, by all decent standards of behavior since 09/11, WHOEVER is ultimately deemed by history to have sponsored that plot, against the security of the USA.
The First lord of the Secretary exercised his judgement.
B
‘ Britain’s commitment to free speech is abysmal at the best of times’
We don’t think it is. It is quite good, even at the worst.
Viewed by a US citizen from the Land of the Free, historically, for those leaving persecution behind them in these islands over the last 250 years, it may seem to be so, but we too have made a little progress with Civil liberties and Human rights, helped a little even by the UNCHR.
I don’t really know what you are referring to here. Can you cite any examples of this progress?
Britain has stifling libel laws that have drawn criticism for years. It has made a huge push to criminalize speech in the last several years. Indeed it is currently prosecuting people for voicing their objections to Afghan war policy. It has criminalized protest. It has made government more centralized and less responsive to the will of the voters. And the liberal tradition in the culture has been eroded to the point where many Brits feel that it is within the government’s mandate to outlaw a lack of politesse. In fact, this government has even failed on its promise to make a decision on the prosecution of the police officer who murdered Ian Tomlinson which is now long overdue.
On every relevant measure Britain is failing to become more liberal and democratic. If you disagree with this, please list some evidence to the contrary.
B As one whose life has been blighted by Libels of the BBC I speak with some authority.
Libel law is not even good for those who can afford it, let alone for those who can.
We could stick to slander and talk to the vicar about it instead, before communion
Freedom of expresssion is NOT an absolute freedom as evidenced in both the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Complete and unfettered free speech exists nowhere in the world, the issue is and always has been to challenge restrictions constantly. It is in the nature of Government to restrict free speech and access to information because these are powerful tools – what is the first action of any coup leader? Answer to secure all the media outlets.
You may well be deeply disillusioned by various bits and pieces of legislation that have a chilling effect on freedom of expression – I agree with you. But nor should you discount the efforts that are made daily by a wide range of NGOs, journalists, parliamentarians to fight these restrictions – often with success.
Despite the courageous judgements made by the US Supreme Court on First Amendment Rights, I would argue that censorship is no less a problem – albeit the causes may be different (for example concentration of media ownership is to my mind a big problem both in the UK and the USA).
Concentration of media ownership in Italy too!
Oh! Hello! Mr Berlusconi!
I think Turkmenistan also has the same problem, much much worse!An appalling personality cult.
Just because it’s worse elsewhere it doesn’t mean we should be complacent here.
Central Asians and Muslims have got to come to terms more prvately with their grief than those of soldiers families at WB.
If a central Asian uses the petrol from UK pumps or gas at the Uk kitchen stove, he is as much to blame as anybody else, for the deaths of those soldiers.
He has got two alternatives. One not to use that gas and oil, or two to go help prevent the deaths.
He would not get very far by demonstrating or marching in Afgh or Pak now would he?
No anti-demos thank you!
The only thing I heard about it was that the march had been proposed. However, if it is banned that is banned then it confirms that I was right to worry all of these years about the state of our democracy. It’s scary enough that there is simply talk by those in power of banning it.
The thing that scares me the most is that it’s not just our country that seems to be shelving democratic values. 🙁
It is very difficult indeed to make law which bans any such demo, and probably undemocratic too.
It is not so difficult for a political leader to be confronted with making a decision to ban it, and doing so.
The difference between Law and leadership.
Instead of wasting time making law; make the decisions when required.
There is a very good act performed at political festivals every year in which the comedian explains hilariously how he gets permssion from the Met police office in Rochester Row to hold demos where ever he wants to hold them.
The paper work is considerable and the law surrounding it utterly foolish; an ageing constable is employed to deal with all such applications. If you want to hold a rally on Westminster bridge for more than two people then you may but it has to be clearly defined; the time; how long for; what for;
and so on.
If the Muslim organiser really wants to hold the anti-demo then proper use of the law allows it.
My own feelings are stated above.
To hold an anti-demo just because somebody is holding a demo in favor, is a skill much employed by the French, and with great success by the Kiwis.
If there is a demo for Gay rights, then on the other side of the square is the demo for Family Values. Which is the anti-demo of the other, I might ask; the one that got the demo forms in first?
“Central Asians and Muslims have got to come to terms more prvately with their grief than those of soldiers families at WB.”
I think you just proved my point. Some people need to just shut up and let the rest of us get on with the status quo.
Did you notice the disgusting attempt to suggest on tonight’s Any Questions that such a protest would take place at the same time as one of the repatriation ceremonies for dead service personnel ??
Much as I dislike what Anjem Choudhary is trying to do here, trying to whip up sentiment against him by lying seems a cheap and tawdry way to try and win the argument which will not succeed.
I’m often disappointed by how ignorant and thick ‘our elders and betters’ on that programme are. Heaven forfend that some of them might end up in the House of Lords…
And a somewhat more cogent argument from David Mitchell..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/10/david-mitchell-free-speech
Sometimes I think we’d actually be better off with comedians running the country. The Lords could keep their positions of authority by volunteering to do a bit of ‘stand-up’ from time to time…
Paul Morton would do very well at the job, of running it.
Unfortunately it is his lack of responsibility which allows him to make the astute political remarks he does make, and it is the burden of it, which prevents politicians from doing the same.
Carl’s early impassioned post is valuable.
The right to demonstrate is an important part
of our various freedoms.
Whilst we are at war with an imagined enemy,
” International Terror”, it must be hard to know whether to allow demos on the basis of reality or prohibit them on the strength of fiction, or vice versa.
Comparing our own Freedoms and Civil liberties with those of the named ‘land of the free’, is a false trail.
” ‘inappropriate’ for Muslims to demonstrate in Wootton Bassett to remind the wider world of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
Since the only connection between Iraq and Afgh is “Muslims”, the call for a demonstration can only come from a supporter of Hizbuh-al-Tahrir who are dedicated to the restauration of the Caliphates throughout the world and the extension of it to the non-Muslim world as well.
The soldiers who have died for their Country have not died for Christendom; they have died
for their country.
It is no concern of any religious organization who should be returning to Wootton Bassett in a coffin.
It is the concern of the relatives of the dead at Wootton Bassett, and their privacy should surely be respected, without the intrusion of an Islamic political organisation based on the life of the generations, after the prophet Mohamed.
The demand for an anti-demonstration is/was indecent and macabre, and entirely inappropriate.
Although there are probably no more than a million Muslims living in the UK, I am very much in favor of declaring one of the Muslim holy days of celebration as a UK national holiday. THAT is a demonstration.
Malysia sets an excellent example, in celebrating Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Confucian, Christian holidays too, and behave accordingly and with respect on the day.