Some of the comments are perfectly harmless, albeit utterly delusional. One commenter even compares Muslims who oppose SIOE to Burmese monks who marched to oppose the military junta ruling their country. Because, of course, opposing the SIOE demonstrators carries with it the risk of being rounded up and imprisoned or killed, doesn't it? Various other commenters accuse SIOE of being fascists and racists.
But among these generally harmless examples of common or garden Islamic lunacy, are some somewhat less peaceable offerings. Consider, for example, this comment, from "venceremos":
...these racist Islamophobes should either be banned from marching or challenged.By which he means, they must not be allowed the opportunity to exercise free speech.
They must not be allowed the opportunity to hide behind the freedom of speech to spread their vile poison.
If they can get away with marching in London this time, they'll be back --cowards that they are-- in larger numbers the next time.So, once again we see the lie that anyone who opposes Islam is a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi" blackshirt. At the same time, Muslims are equivalent, not only to Burmese monks, but also to Cable Street Jews. One wonders whether there has ever been an oppressed group to whom Muslims will not compare themselves? Other than the many groups who have been oppressed by Muslims, of course.
London Jews learned that in the 'thirties and confronted Moseley's [sic] thugs in Cable Street in 1936. The Nazis were given a good duffing-up and never reared their ugly heads in Britain again.
This new generation of white supremacists are no different. You either stamp them out or they'll spread like an uncontrolled virus.
However, of rather greater importance is the fact that this thug appears to be advocating violence against peaceful demonstrators. Possibly even lethal violence: I'd be interested to know what it was, precisely, that he meant by "stamp them out".
Since this comment has been allowed to remain on the MPACUK forum, can we assume that it is endorsed by this Islamic organisation? After all, even the most ardent advocates of online free speech tend to draw the line at threats of violence.
Certainly, it seems that at least some of the MPACUK forum's other commenters agreed with "venceremos". Not one of them condemned him for the threat of violence, and at least one other commenter, "IbnTamiyya", agreed with him:
Yes brtoher [sic]! These people need to be taight [sic] a lesson.This post had been edited by a forum moderator, to remove the "inappropriate language". What that inappropriate language was, I don't know. In the context, I'd imagine that the first instance contained some form of derogatory reference to Jews, but I really can't guess at what the second "inappropriate" phrase might have been. I also note, that while the moderator was quick to remove "inappropriate language", he did nothing to restrict or oppose the expression of views supporting violence against peaceful protesters. Nor did he deem the obviously threatening phrase "sort these kuffars" to be inappropriate. Again I ask, does MPACUK endorse threats of this nature?
We should take a lesson from the [inappropriate language]and sort these kuffars ourselves. The british government and police will not do it for us as they agree with everything these [inappropriate language]say and do.
As I mentioned above, the commenters at MPACUK repeatedly denounced the supporters of SIOE as being fascists and Nazis. However, I would say, that while there is an abundance of fascism on display in the comments quoted, absolutely none of it is coming from SIOE. On the contrary, it is coming from Muslim commenters, who, rather like the Burmese junta, wish to violently suppress the exercise of free speech by those who oppose them. It is because of people like these, that it is imperative that we do all that we can to resist the Islamification of Britain.