That's just meekly submitting to intimidation, in both cases. Why should one group be allowed to dictate another's movements with threats of violence?Svartalf wrote:a) it should feel safer if the muslims are known to be violently aggressive$Geoff wrote:Bollocks. How would you feel if one of your pride marches was told it mustn't go near a Muslim area for fear of upsetting them?Lozzer wrote:Maybe if the NI authorities restricted the movements of the Orange-men parade from Catholic and republican areas, riots simply wouldn't kick off. They know it's patronising, and they know it triggers tensions to escalate: but they persist, and people get hurt because of pure inevitability. The media uses it as an excuse to say 'hey, look, the republicans are kicking off again', meanwhile a bunch of stuck-up, bowler-hatted unionists march the streets celebrating the defeat and death of thousands of Catholics. The violent response should be considered second to repulsive, anachronistic conceit of the Twelfth celebrations.
b) If the parade is an actual threat to public order, the authorities have not only the power, but the duty to restrict the itinerary to places where it won't cause riots.
The authorities have it right, IMO, in allowing all marches to go ahead, and providing police protection when it's thought necessary.