AddThis

Share |

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Anti-English Demonstration plugged by Leicester Mercury


The general tenor of journalism in the UK today can be perplexing for rational beings. For example, the Daily Mail and Daily Express put out a constant stream of stories bemoaning the negative impact of multiculturalism and mass immigration, thereby frequently getting their readerships hot under the collar about these issues, but then promptly instruct them that they should vote for the Conservative Party, a party that is committed to multiculturalism and mass immigration. It’s all heat and no light with these papers. Now, if they were actually to do the logical thing and say to their readers: “If you don’t like multiculturalism and mass immigration, then vote for a party that opposes these phenomena, i.e. not Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat” then I might possibly accord them a little respect. As they do not, and instead keep herding their readerships towards what amounts to collective mass self-harm by voting Conservative, I hold them in hearty contempt.

The politicisation of the press is of course largely a consequence of the guidelines on race and religion issued by the National Union of Journalists, which demand a systematic distortion and misrepresentation of any story that touches upon these themes. Thus, turning to today’s Leicester Mercury we are confronted with two contrasting headlines: one concerning the EDL’s forthcoming Leicester demonstration on 4 February, the other covering a predictable reactive protest by UAF. Before revealing the headlines, it is worth reminding ourselves that the EDL has chosen to demonstrate in the city on this day because of the lenient sentences handed out to a gang of female Somalis who engaged in an unprovoked anti-White race attack against Rhea Page and her boyfriend, and the failure of the court to acknowledge a racial element to the crime.

The Daily Mail, unsurprisingly, made a huge noise about this case and its injustice. One would therefore think, looking at things logically, that the Daily Mail and other papers would be keen to back a protest against the judiciary’s wilful discounting of a racial motive in this instance. Why wouldn’t they be keen to champion a popular, grassroots democratic expression of discontent on this score? There could be no grounds, surely, for the Mail and the rest of the press ostensibly enraged by the Page case, not to back such a demonstration? Well, the Daily Mail has to date (correct me if I’m wrong) remained mute on the EDL’s forthcoming demo, whereas the Leicester Mercury has chosen to cover it. Is the Leicester Mercury sympathetic? Hardly.
Do you notice anything telling about the manner in which the two stories have been prefaced? What of that first phrase – “used as a reason for EDL demo”. What does the paper mean “used as a reason”? This phrasing seems to imply that the Rhea Page case is simply being used as a pretext to demonstrate in Leicester rather than being the real reason for the demonstration. Journalists are generally assiduous in choosing the words that they employ in headlines, so whoever wrote headline number one would have carefully structured it in such a way as to generate a particular intended impact and insinuation in the minds of readers. Whilst not being supportive, the headline also failed to be neutral: it was hostile to the EDL and their cause on this occasion.

The words in headline number two may also have been carefully chosen, but they were not carefully checked for spelling errors. What is ‘facism’? Is it some species of ‘lookism’? Discrimination against people with less than average, that is to say, ugly faces? Are the ‘anti-facists’ thus a group of ugly people with a chip on their shoulder regarding their looks? Leading ‘anti-facists’ such as Weyman Bennett and Martin Smith? I couldn't possibly comment. The author of the second headline was evidently attempting to write ‘anti-fascist’, which, to be fair is also another mistake. Let me correct their headline for them so that it is both correctly spelt and factually rather than politically correct: ‘Anti-English group bids to attack proposed EDL march in Leicester.’ That is what the leaders of UAF are planning to do: mount an anti-English, anti-White march in the hope that they will manage to generate a violent confrontation with supporters of the EDL and other people marching against anti-White racism.

UAF is a deliberately provocative and violent campaigning organisation whose followers have in recent years staged a number of anti-English attacks, but scandalously these have not been highlighted by the mass media and the objects of their attacks – the EDL – have been vilified in their stead.

Unlike the idiotic and unnecessarily aggressive stance of UAF, the Leicester Mercury mentions the rather more level-headed reaction of the Leicestershire Federation of Muslim Organisations which the paper states:
“is advising people not to participate in counter demonstrations or to attempt to tackle the EDL.
Its spokesman, Suleman Nagdi, said: "Our message will be the same as last time. We are urging people, particularly the young, to refrain from going into the city centre to oppose the English Defence League out of some misguided idea that they are protecting their city.

"We are best to leave everything to the experts – in this case the police.””
Mr Nagdi has offered some sensible advice and evidently has a sounder head upon his shoulders than either the luminaries of UAF or its supporters. There’s no reason why there should be any violence at this protest, and I hope that it is both peaceful and successful. Good luck to the police in containing the thuggish element within the emotionally overwrought ranks of UAF. Readers may view an EDL video highlighting the reasons for their Leicester demo here.


1 comment:

  1. I demand sharia for those sharmutas. Stone them for being drunk.

    ReplyDelete

Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.