Reflections on British Nationalism and the Foundation of the British Freedom Party: Part 2

Recognising the Boundaries of Belonging
Since the advent of the Blair era in particular, mainstream politicians and journalists have repeated the mantras that “Britain is a nation of immigrants” and that “the British cannot define themselves because we don’t know who we are”. The first of these mantras is of course an act of tendentious distortion, comparing distinctly unlike phenomena taking place over vastly differing timescales. The second is an out and out lie, unless the referents of this statement are taken to be those who happen to be recent immigrants (i.e. those who have arrived in the post-WWII era) or their descendants.

Although Daniel Defoe’s poem of 1701 – A True-Born Englishman – is often cited as a precursor to the contemporary multicultural dogma, in truth Defoe wrote this piece specifically with a view to ridiculing a wave of anti-Dutch xenophobia then abroad in England that extended to attacks on ordinary law-abiding residents of Dutch descent. It is worth quoting the most famous passage from the poem to set the context:

Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het'rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend'ring off-spring quickly learn'd to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus'd betwixt a Saxon and a Dane
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv'd all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.

Note that Defoe compresses the history of 1800 years into 14 lines, enumerating the various peoples who had had some input into the genetic and cultural inheritance of the English. Nowhere does he make reference to Saxon, Danish or Roman ‘communities’ as this would have been (and still is) errant nonsense. All of these strands, drawn from closely related European peoples, had become woven into a single people who saw themselves as a distinct nation: the English. The historical migrations of peoples to the British Isles took place over millennia, and although open to various interpretations, recent studies suggest that the genetic input from elsewhere after the Neolithic period was relatively modest. The closest genetic relatives of the English, particularly those resident in the West of the country, remain the Basques, even though there is nothing in recorded history about any Basque migration. Our ties reach back into deep prehistory (see ‘The Origins of the British’, Stephen Oppenheimer, 2006).

I raise the question of genetics not because I believe that the English are a ‘pure race’, for this is in the same realm of fantasy as the idea that we are ‘a nation of immigrants’, but because it highlights the reality of the current politically motivated desire to erase English identity and English conceptions of nationhood. There is a real continuity, genetic and cultural, between the people who inhabited what we now know as England in prehistory, and those who today know themselves to be the English. However, we English only exist for many in the media and political class when there is call for an imperialist bogey, for somebody to blame for the woes of the world and to pay for them. Then suddenly, we become all too readily identifiable, even though the architects of the imperial design were the ruling stratum who dispossessed our own humble forebears of their rights to common land and an independent existence.

In England, the English constitute a readily identifiable indigenous people, and as such we deserve the right to political self-determination and primacy within our own land. Is it so wrong for us to demand this right in line with indigenous peoples elsewhere? I think not.

Who then, I hear you ask, is English? The answer is straightforward: if you are a UK citizen who lives in England and you have to ask yourself the question “Am I English?” then patently you are not. If the question should pop into your head “Am I Pakistani, or am I English” or “Am I Nigerian, or am I English?” then you are not English, but a resident Pakistani or Nigerian UK passport holder. In such cases you hold the same civil rights as every other citizen, but you are in no respects English, and it is precisely because of this cleft identity, this split loyalty, that you should not have a determining voice in the future of England, for it is not your land to dispose of. Such people have an ethnic homeland as we do, and should not see it as a right to colonise and take ours.

For someone to simply turn up in the UK and to receive citizenship under our current immigration regime does not in any way magically impart to them the quality of being ‘British’, ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, ‘Scottish’ or ‘Irish’. Whereas in bygone centuries those who settled here gradually lost their ties with their lands of origin and were absorbed into the host population and dominant culture through intermarriage, those who have come in recent decades have not done so. Why is this so? The reasons are quite straightforward and are derived from the radically different set of historical conditions that have arisen since the Second World War. These have militated against the absorption of incomers and promoted a heightening of perceived difference as well as its perpetuation, and can be characterised as political, legal, technological, sociological and economic. Importantly, there is also the scale and pace of immigration to consider. This dwarfs anything previously described in the historical record and in itself has thus acted as a barrier to the absorption of incomers.

Political factors militating against absorption into the host society and identification with its culture include: the official promotion of multiculturalism through schooling, employment law, the mainstream media and the university system. These are underpinned by ‘hate’ laws. Ethnopluralism is vigorously promoted as are minority religious beliefs associated with non-indigenous peoples. Anyone opposing the official multiculturalist dogma is stigmatised and barred from taking positions of influence in the state sector.

The word ‘revolution’ is much overused, but its application to communications technology in the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries is apposite. New modes of transport including intercontinental flights facilitate the mass transit of people from Asia and Africa to the UK, whereas distance and expense would previously have debarred such a movement of people, as would have the many states that lie between our islands and their lands. Telecommunications ensure that once immigrants arrive here they never have to feel that they our out of touch with their country of origin: the telephone and satellite television followed by the internet have allowed diasporas to keep in touch with the mother country without feeling any great psychological need to adapt to the culture of their new home which is itself denigrated and denied by the UK’s political and cultural oligarchy (the same situation can be found across most Western European countries).

Sociologically, immigrants increasingly cleave to their own identities and cultures because of the aforementioned factors. Some groups, such as Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, constantly replenish and reinforce their ancestral cultures through the importation of ill-educated rural dwellers (usually close relatives) from their homelands via chain migration. Our law allows for so-called ‘family reunion’. I’ve nothing against family reunion, but shouldn’t it be in the family’s land of origin? Looking at the increasing social fragmentation and atomisation of the receiving society, these immigrants tend to feel more comfortable in their own ethno-communal networks and cultural contexts. Although some people from such backgrounds have come to identify with and adopt the host culture, most have not. This is particularly true of those with Muslim identities who tend to define themselves against indigenous British norms and values.

Economics plays a role in the promotion of ethnic fragmentation and mass immigration because immigrant labour can be used by those within our ruling oligarchy (I prefer to use this term rather than ‘elite’, because I do not think that the oligarchy necessarily contains our ‘best’, even if some of them may be amongst our ‘brightest') to make handsome profits by undermining domestic labour rates. In summary, multiculturalism and mass immigration are favoured by those who control the levers of the economy because these mechanisms can net them huge profits. Whereas ordinary indigenous Britons suffer, members of the ruling oligarchy can afford to insulate themselves from the deleterious impact of their policies by living in exclusive residential areas (often rural) and by sending their offspring to private schools where they do not have to mix with the polyglot multifaith multitude that are a significant burden on state schools.

Having outlined the reasons why there are now many UK citizens who have no sense of affiliation with the native peoples of the British Isles, I can however say that there are many people in England (Scotland and Wales too) who can recall that some of their ancestors entered the country from elsewhere such as Poland or Italy, but over the generations have been assimilated through intermarriage and adoption of the native culture. I regard these people as English, certainly more English than someone who can trace their ancestry here back ten generations who has converted to Islam. Those who convert to Islam consciously turn their backs not only upon their nation but also their ethnicity, their culture and Western Civilisation: there never has been and never will be such a creature as a Muslim Englishman or woman. The concepts are antithetical. A non-Muslim individual of Jamaican descent who loves England and English culture is more English than an ethnic English Muslim convert, for the former has chosen to embrace our heritage and identity, whilst the latter has spat upon it. Such an example I take to illustrate the concept of cultural nationalism.

Reflections on British Nationalism and the Foundation of the British Freedom Party: Part 1

Introduction
Following months of rancour within the BNP, a group of reformists has announced the creation of the British Freedom Party (BFP). Its founding has been precipitated by their failure to effectively challenge Nick Griffin’s hold on the leadership of the party and to introduce mechanisms for the democratic formulation of party policy and the appointment of key personnel. Furthermore, there were questions connected to a lack of transparency relating to party accounts and allegations of an absence of financial probity at the top of the party.

Thus, the imperative for the emergence of the new party was not ideological, but procedural. The BFP is therefore presumably what its founders would have liked the BNP to have become had the Nick Griffin/Jim Dowson clique either stepped down or been dislodged. That said, one of the leading voices amongst the BFP is Lee Barnes, the BNP’s former ‘legal eagle’, who fell out with Griffin then swiftly fell in with the reformist camp led by Eddy Butler who sought to challenge Griffin for the party leadership. Being a prolific blogger and commentator on nationalist forums, Barnes has to date been the main source of information about the BFP and its ideological stance. For Barnes, the BFP is not a party founded upon racial nationalism, ethno-nationalism or civic nationalism, but upon cultural nationalism. In effect, this is a beefed-up civic nationalism with a greater emphasis upon the cultural assimilation of the immigrant population.

The objectives of the BFP published on the Advanced Ape blog are certainly ones to which I subscribe:

The objects of the Party shall exist to defend and restore the freedoms, traditions, unity, identity, democracy and independence of the British people, to establish full sovereignty over all our national affairs by restoring the supremacy of the British Parliament, to withdraw from the European Union, to promote democratic British nationalist principles, to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural interests of the British people and to preserve and promote the ancestral rights and liberties of the British people as enshrined in the British Constitution.

The BFP now enters a crowded field of parties touting for the nationalist vote, for besides the BNP there are also UKIP, the English Democrats, the National Front (NF) and the England First Party (EFP). There are probably other miniscule groupings that I have not mentioned, but if I’ve not heard of them, you can guarantee that they certainly will not make a breakthrough. Besides these, we have the anti-Islamisation street movement of the English Defence League (EDL). None, in my opinion, possess the right mix of policies, objectives and organisation to be able to make a mainstream breakthrough at the current time. All lack credibility. What is equally clear is that there has never been a greater need for a moderate nationalist party to break through into the mainstream. Before proceeding to outline why, it will first be necessary to clarify my terms.

Why Nationalism? What is Nationalism?
I recognise that my reasons for favouring nationalism will not be shared by many others who describe themselves as nationalists, and this of course grows out of the fact that what is meant by the term ‘nationalism’ is hotly disputed and possesses a wide variety of definitions. So, before venturing further I shall provide a definition of what I consider to be a ‘nation’ (as those of you familiar with theoretical writings on this subject will note, my position shares a great deal with that of A.D. Smith), but given the limited scope of this piece I shall at this stage neither go into great depth nor provide bibliographic citations in line with standard academic practice as used in the Harvard System.

An ethnie is a group defined by a combination of common biological descent, common culture and common history. These are the preconditions upon which a collective ethnic sentiment is forged and rests; without these, there can be no distinct ‘we’. A nation is a politically mobilised ethnie that is either in possession of a state, is actively seeking statehood, or has lost statehood and is seeking its restoration. Mobilisation thus proceeds upon the basis of securing the interests (however they may be defined) of the nation as a whole. Nationalism therefore represents the purest form of democratic politics, for the nation and the demos and their interests are identified as one. Without seeking to further the interests of the nation, politicians of whatever stated hue are acting against the well-being of the demos, and are thus by definition anti-democrats. Politicians and journalists who act against the interests of the nation use pejorative terms such as ‘populism’ and ‘demagoguery’ to stigmatise the genuine articulation of the people’s interests and opinions by anti-oligarchic rivals.

Nationalism therefore, is nothing more than the political pursuit of the well-being of the members of a given nation. It is the purest expression of democratic principles and thus stands opposed to oligarchy and globalism. Thus, unlike what its leftist detractors claim, nationalism is not an ideology of ‘hate’; nationalism is not ‘xenophobic’; nationalism is not synonymous with imperialism (in fact, genuine nationalists deplore imperialism for they recognise the rights of other nations to self-determination and free political expression) and nationalism is not ‘racist’. Nationalism defines itself in a positive fashion by pursuing what is best for the people collectively, not through seeking conflict with other nations.

Nationalism seeks to liberate the potential of all members of the nation, not of any one class or special interest group. This is why those on the Left detest nationalism, for they are wedded to the belief that international class identities trump all others, and that nations should be ‘smashed’ to usher in their Socialist or Communist Millennium. Nationalism stands for pluralism and true diversity, whereas the visions of leftists and capitalist globalists seek a totalitarian uniformity.

I therefore define myself as a nationalist because I wish to see the best for the members my nation collectively; the nation provides the best context in which individuals can flourish and reach their full potential. I wish to see other peoples also concern themselves with building better lives and futures for their own nations. Nationalism represents the best path for the whole of humanity, and does not in and of itself lead to conflict.

Nationalism is not imperialism. Nationalism is not fascism. Nationalism is not Nazism. Nationalism does not entail ethnic cleansing. Nationalism is democracy in action. Nationalism promotes the conservation of resources and the environment. Nationalism is diversity.

Globalism generates hate. Globalism generates conflict. Globalism facilitates economic imperialism. Globalism is oligarchy in action. Globalism promotes the degradation of resources and the environment. Globalism is uniformity.

Which Nation is Mine?
For all of the above reasons I am a nationalist, but of what type? I am English. In those three words there is much significance, for although I also see myself as British, as European and more widely (moving into the realm of ideological belonging) a Westerner and a rationalist, the ‘English’ element denotes what I consider to be my nationality. Strangely though, although the English are arguably one of the oldest nations, they do not currently possess a statehood of their own, being instead cemented into the UK and the EU. Within the UK the Scots, the Welsh and the Unionist and Republican populations of Ulster all possess their own distinct forms of in-group ethnic sentiment as well as political expression in their own assemblies and, in the Scottish case, Parliament. The English on the other hand, have to make do with Westminster which of course represents the whole of the UK. In this respect therefore, the English can technically be said to lack a political existence as a nation.

Devolution has created a situation in which distinct political dynamics have been established in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales (the situation in Ulster has always been different), which mean that they increasingly see themselves as separate from England. They also have their own ostensible nationalist parties in the form of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, which are in reality defined exclusively through opposition to England and the English because otherwise they embrace multiculturalism and do not therefore behave in the manner of true nationalist parties. The launch of a British rather than an English Freedom Party thus seems to me to be a tactical mistake. England has borne the brunt of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Islamisation, and it is in England that there exists the greatest pent up demand for a true national democratic party. An English Freedom Party could still be a unionist party, but, any continuation of the United Kingdom needs to be one that is ratified by its composite nations and, irrespective of its outcome, England needs a parliament of its own.

Ugly Violence Taints EDL Leicester Demo

The following video clip looks damning and very ugly indeed (hat tip Goodnight Vienna). There is absolutely no excuse for violence such as this by people claiming membership of or support for the EDL or any other group. If anyone knows who these men are, they need to have the book thrown at them. They tarnish the reputation of anyone who speaks out against Islamism in our country. By all means protest against Islamisation, but never ever behave in a fashion such as this. Target the ideology, not people. There is a world of difference between advocating a particular political position and this repellent behaviour.

What on earth did these idiots hope to achieve? They are not fit to be considered fellow Englishmen. I'm just glad that nobody in the restaurant came to any physical harm. Good luck to the police in finding them.

BBC plugs ‘We are One Leicester Peace Festival’

Yesterday the BBC gave a plug to the above ‘festival’ held in Leicester following Saturday's demonstration by the EDL. As is evident from the video report below, the BBC’s claim that “Thousands of people showed their opposition to an English Defence League (EDL) protest in Leicester by holding a festival of peace in the city” seemed to be rather overstating the numbers involved.

Unsurprisingly, the so-called ‘Bard of Barking’, otherwise known as Billy Bragg, was on hand to provide out-of-tune singing and some predictable quotes for the cameras. Bragg stated “Down the generations each generation has had to confront the racists and the fascists, you know that my parents’ generation in the war, my generation in rock against racism and a new generation today with the English Defence League.”

Once again, Bragg deploys the standard smears against the EDL, claiming that they are “racists and fascists”. The BBC of course is happy to broadcast these lies as they dovetail neatly with its own deeply ingrained cultural relativist Islamoservile editorial stance. Interestingly, an online article on the event also quotes Bragg as stating:

I'm here because I am a patriot. I have come to Leicester because I care about this great, multicultural city and I am proud to be English. I wanted to come here and say it is not acceptable for anyone to use the symbols of my country to intimidate everyone else.

There you have it: Billy Bragg the lover of multicultural Leicester. Indeed, Bragg is so enamoured of the contemporary urban multicultural experience that he upped sticks from Barking and settled in Dorset. Mercifully, Dorset is still what Greg Dyke would describe as being “hideously white” or, more accurately, English. So, perhaps deep down Billy Bragg really is an English patriot acting in bad faith, which is why despite his words in praise of multiculturalism he has firmly turned his back on it in practice. When you move back to Barking or make your home in Leicester or Bradford Billy, then we may accord some credence to the cant that you currently utter.

Chris Lough delivers EDL Leicester Speech

The video below shows Chris Lough delivering his speech at yesterday’s EDL anti-Islamisation demonstration in Leicester. Listen to his words. I for one cannot hear anything in what he says that suggests that either he or the EDL are the bunch of neo-Nazis that their detractors claim they are. The simple fact of the matter is that UAF, the mainstream media and our political class lie about the EDL; they seek to stigmatise them because they are a grassroots movement which dares to speak the awkward truth about the advance of doctrinaire Islam in our country.

The organisers of UAF – the SWP – think that they can use Islamists to foment a climate of radical violence in our country with a view to undermining our state and society, thus they support them. The mainstream media are uncritical of doctrinaire Islam because its personnel are so steeped in cultural relativism as a goal rather than a method that their critical and moral faculties have become neutralised. Our mainstream politicians will not deal with the problem for a combination of reasons: fear of losing votes in constituencies with high concentrations of Muslims; uncritical adherence to cultural relativism and, lastly but by no means least, fear of radical Muslim violence were they to recognise and address the problem.

EDL and MDL on the Streets of Leicester

The following videos taken in Leicester yesterday illustrate the scale of the police operation in ensuring that rival demonstrators from the EDL and UAF did not clash. One element present in Leicester that the mainstream media chose not to highlight was the so-called Muslim Defence League (MDL), which sprang into being earlier this year in anti-homage to the English Defence League. Like the EDL, this is more an idea and an amorphous movement reliant upon social networking technologies than an organisation with a strictly defined hierarchy. It will of course have its key activists and agitators, but the MDL is no monolith.

However, unlike the EDL the MDL draws the bulk of its street presence at protests from amongst the locally resident population, from Muslim ‘communities’ as the mainstream media likes to refer to such neighbourhoods.  Thus those labelled as members of the MDL in the videos below may in some cases see themselves as such, but in many instances I am sure that the people you see will be resident Muslims either looking for a fight or coming out to ‘protect’ one of their mosques which they were misled into believing would be subject to EDL attack. As I outlined last month, this piece of police ‘intelligence’ appears to have been fabricated with the express intent of banning the EDL from protesting in Leicester. This naturally caused unnecessary and unwarranted alarm amongst Muslim residents and generated a climate of fear that stoked the violence that occurred yesterday.

Lack of Clarity in BBC Report on Violence and Arrests at Leicester Demonstrations

The latest available BBC report on yesterday’s EDL and UAF demonstrations in Leicester reveals that some ugly violent incidents marred the day and a number of arrests were made. However, as you will see from the excerpt reproduced below, the report is written in such a way as not to reveal who was arrested and why. An anonymous commentator on my blog has claimed that some EDL members engaged in acts of violence, and I would be surprised given the numbers involved (the BBC’s revised estimates now stand at 2,000 for the EDL and 600 for UAF) if the demonstration had been entirely peaceful. Let me once again however make it clear that I do not condone violence, but I support the EDL’s right to protest peacefully. Anyone who deliberately initiates and engages in acts of violence must expect the full force of the law to be brought against them.

Given the BBC’s editorial hostility towards the EDL and the anti-Islamisation movement in general, it is therefore surprising that it does not mention how many of the thirteen arrested were from amongst the ranks of the EDL. This suggests to me that as in Bolton earlier this year the majority of arrests were of UAF counter-demonstrators. Indeed in Harrow on 11 September 2009 UAF demonstrators and hothead elements in the local Muslim population attacked the police at the site of a demonstration planned by Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE), even though the demonstration itself didn’t take place. Likewise, not long after that they attacked the police in Luton with a variety of items including fireworks even though there was no EDL protest. Unite Against Fascism has a long history of seeking to stir up anti-English hatred and initiating violence in pursuit of its Trotskyist violent revolutionary strategy, as the guiding members of UAF such as Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett are members of the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) Central Committee.

Even the BBC cannot gloss over the reality of UAF violence, hence its report only makes mention of one specific incident of directed violence, and this was against two EDL coaches which were leaving the city. For me, “throwing stones and bricks” at vehicles is simply inexcusable, for serious injury or death could have resulted. Read the excerpt below, and draw your own conclusions:

Thirteen men have been arrested during two protests in Leicester, which sparked the biggest police operation in the county for 25 years.

The English Defence League (EDL) held a static demonstration and Unite Against Fascism (UAF) staged a counter-protest on Humberstone Gate East. 

Riot police moved in after several fireworks, bottles and coins were thrown.

There were also reports of violence away from the demonstration site.

Gangs were seen throwing stones and bricks at two coaches carrying EDL supporters as they left the city.

Those arrested at the main protest site were aged between 30 and 42 and were not from the Leicester area

UAF in Leicester: Noisy, Repetitious and Tedious

In my previous post you will have seen video footage of the EDL demonstrating in Leicester yesterday, so I thought that I’d also ‘treat’ you to the sight of the Socialist Workers’ Party guided UAF counter-demonstrators who turned up in Leicester. The chanting makes it evident that these people have been so wound up and indoctrinated that they mechanically reproduce the same old slogans coupled with emotions of self-righteous hatred wherever they go. Up goes the old and misplaced shrill refrain “Nazi scum, off our streets!” Well, if they were truly interested in ridding our streets of the nearest contemporary equivalents of what they describe as “Nazi scum”, then they really ought to be joining with the EDL and protesting against Islamism, but these folk just don’t get it. They really don’t get it. Why is the world filled with vapid, empty-headed, dangerous anti-rational fools?

What really happened at the EDL Leicester Demo? Video Footage and Reflections on Press Reports

UPDATE: If you are looking for information on the EDL Demo  in Leicester protesting on behalf of Rhea Page and other English victims of racism on 4 February 2012 please visit the video and article here: 

http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2012/01/edl-promo-video-rhea-paige-leicester.html

This is something upon which I can only speculate, for I was not there. That said, I shall endeavour to provide a more objective perspective than you will find given by any NUJ hack (who in all likelihood also was not present) from the information that is at hand.

The Home Secretary Theresa May had banned the proposed EDL march which meant that protesters were confined to the Humberside Gate East area of the city where they were kettled in by a large number of police officers kitted out in riot gear, with mounted police and dogs also at hand. As is now expected at all EDL demonstrations, UAF mounted a counter-demonstration in the city. The Daily Telegraph estimates the number of supporting demonstrators at circa 1,000 and 700 apiece respectively, which is pretty much in line with the scale of previous protests. However, a later estimate on the BBC website claimed that there were 2,000 EDL protesters present, which is a very large turnout, but its later report on associated violence and arrests lacked clarity. Altogether, some 1,400 police participated in the exercise with many being drafted in from neighbouring forces, netting them some handsome overtime payments.

The BBC report on the demonstration was rather temperate in the language that it employed compared to its previous treatments of the EDL, starting off with a couple of interviews with Leicester residents, including a black middle-aged property developer named Mark James who reflected:

The EDL invited me in to hear what they had to say and I was ready to go in, but the police said I couldn’t, it was too dangerous, it could provoke trouble.

You hear and see terrible things about Islamic extremism, so you can see why people would not want that.

And the neighbourhood I live in here in Leicester is mostly Muslim and every community has its own racism - you don't always here about that.

It seems to me that Mr James is a reasonable man who has a mind of his own and who is keen to find out the facts of the matter for himself rather than relying upon media reports. After moving on to an interview with a young woman from Stoke who expressed sympathy with the EDL, the BBC then relapsed into autopilot and sought to associate the EDL with Nazism. I must confess to being flabbergasted that the BBC always manages to find someone who fled from the Nazis and who is willing to tar ordinary English men and women with this vile and baseless association, but once again they did, this time in the person of Maria Ronner who “grew up in Germany in the 1930s”. What Ronner herself says is not actually that damning, but what is of great interest is the manner in which the BBC hack prefaced her observation. First I shall provide her words, and then the prefatory sentence provided by the BBC:

"I heard about this demonstration last night and did not like what I heard, but I was very curious to see what it was really about," she said.

"I have a great interest in the multicultural society. A great interest. It is important to see how people can understand each other, can learn."

What had she heard and what was she told? I should imagine that she would have been fed the lie that the objectives of the EDL are racist, fascist and far-right, etc, so one can naturally understand that this old woman would “not like” what she “heard”. She had been primed to feed the BBC with the lines that they so desired: the EDL are the new Nazis. However, she didn’t go that far, which is why the BBC journalist saw it necessary to write “But a set of experienced eyes viewed the banners with suspicion” ahead of the quotations. “Banners” and “experienced eyes”? What banners? The EDL carry flags, do they not? Flags of St George. English flags. Not “banners” emblazoned with eagles and swastikas. In what way were Maria Ronner’s eyes “experienced” in this respect? Did she see Nazi stormtroopers marching with crosses of St George against Sharia law in 1930s Germany? I don’t think so. Once again, the BBC displays its typically tendentious reporting, designed to elicit hatred of the EDL and by extension of the English as an ethnic group in line with NUJ guidelines. Still, this report was a model of balance compared to the shockingly poor and partisan quality of the following interview with the ersatz Labour ‘Lord’ and MP ‘Sir Peter Soulsby’ shown below:



The AFP claims that there were eight arrests of protestors today, but as on previous occasions, it did not spell out whether all or any of these were from the EDL or UAF. One set of protesters which the mainstream media ignored were the so-called Muslim Defence League (MDL) who intended to attack the EDL. If you would like to view footage of their activity yesterday including a clash with a small group of EDL protesters take a look at EDL and MDL on the Streets of Leicester.  The videos below give a flavour of the main EDL demonstration, but for some reason the ITN report appears to lack sound.