Newcastle's ‘Rising Against Islamophobia’

As the economic decline of the West continues, and individuals who joined trade unions look to them to protect their jobs and working conditions, many trade union activists dedicate themselves to concerns that are tangential, if not in direct opposition to, the beliefs, desires and interests of rank-and-file members. Thus it is that many union stewards and reps abuse their positions of trust to forward their own militant Leftist agenda. They undermine the job security of indigenous members by actively promoting ever more mass immigration (legal migration, ‘asylum’, recognition of the ‘right’ of illegal immigrants to remain in the country, ‘family reunion’, Turkish accession to the EU, etc) as well as subverting the identity of the country by engaging in a vigorous Kulturkampf which promotes Balkanisation under the heading of ‘diversity’, routinely brand expressions of English identity as ‘racist’ and ‘extremist’, and support the growth of the misogynist, anti-rational Dark Age belief system called Islam.

What I have written above is a statement of fact. I do not believe that there is any room for this to be disputed. That said, I do not for one moment tar all trade unionists with the same brush, and recognise that there are many excellent stewards and reps who do a good job in seeking to defend the interests of their members and do not become involved in the harmful abovementioned activities that are embedded within the official policies of their unions. It is up to people such as these to win back the trade union movement for reason, and to defend the real interests of their members rather than undermining the latter’s economic security and stigmatising their indigenous cultural identity. I call upon decent trade unionists who do not subscribe to erroneous Leftist multiculturalist dogma to make their displeasure known to colleagues about the union-sponsored UAF demonstration promoting Islamisation and supported by the Muslim Defence League (MDL) that will take place in Newcastle on 29 October this year. 

The title of the event itself – Rising Against Islamophobia – is both provocative and designed to promote the myth that objecting to Islamic doctrine and Islamisation is irrational. Indeed, the aim of the organisers is to stamp out independent thought and to impose a totalitarian line: this is the ‘truth’, and if you question it, you are a ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ and ‘far-right’. Even if you are a trade unionist who does not share my particular perspective, you ought to feel distinctly uneasy about the line and tactics of UAF.

Unison appears to be the major union backing the event, but the following campaigns, groups and individuals will also be represented: 

• Black Activists Rising Against Cuts (BARAC)
• Coalition of Resistance
• Councillor Dipu Ahad
• Enough Coalition Against Islamophobia
• Muslim Defence League 
• Northern Public Services Alliance 
• Show Racism the Red Card
• Stop the War Coalition
• Yvonne Ridley

How much will this promotion of Islam cost non-Muslim trade union members? This event will after all require funding. At a time when jobs are being lost and services being degraded, why are scarce resources being wasted upon promoting an alien and hostile creed that stands in direct opposition to the values of most ordinary trade unionists? It is time that rank-and-file members awoke to the fact that their movement has been hijacked by Trotskyites intent upon using it for purposes other than what it was established.

The EDL will be holding a counter-protest to this celebration of national self-destruction, cultural masochism and Islamisation. Let us hope that they enjoy a successful and peaceful demonstration, and that ordinary trade unionists are able to win back their movement from the harmful pro-Islamic fanatics who have subverted its noble founding principles.

Shipley Muslim Mother moans to the Telegraph and Argus

Yesterday, the Telegraph and Argus ran an unsubstantiated report that ex-Englishwoman Tracy Shah, who surrendered her mental faculties when she submitted to Islam in 2003, has experienced verbal abuse and has had water and orange juice thrown at her and her offspring in recent months by children travelling on buses from St Bede’s School in Bradford. Strange, is it not, that she should choose to make this public now, and that the paper should run this ‘story’ a week after Muslim pupils threw rather more substantial missiles, in the form of bricks and stones at their fellow non-Muslim schoolmates, smashing windows on the buses that were carrying them home? It strikes me as a rather feeble attempt by the Telegraph and Argus to misrepresent the one-sided nature of the violence displayed in last week’s incident, by somehow seeking to ‘legitimise’ this outburst with reference to putative anti-Muslim acts by non-Muslim pupils at St Bede’s. Well, this simply doesn’t wash with me, despite the fact that Shah-woman claims that she’s received at least one soaking. Even if she has experienced such unpleasantness, it is as of nothing compared to the very real and terrifying violence unleashed upon those Catholic pupils last week.

Why has the Telegraph and Argus not singled out and condemned the violence and its perpetrators? Why has it instead chosen to run a story destined for tomorrow’s issue entitled ‘Cohesion helped prevent riots in Bradford’? As the recent riots were essentially opportunistic outbursts of criminality organised along the lines of other types of flashmob, why does the paper point to some non-existent community ‘cohesion’ as an explanation for this? I wouldn’t have expected Muslims to have participated in the riots any more than anyone else, and attribute their general absence from this unrest to the fact that it happened to be Ramadan; thus, those who might have been tempted to riot were simply too knackered to do so after fasting for the whole day.

Quite clearly, the Bradford paper has chosen to run these two stories now because it is trying to gloss over last week’s incident at St Bede’s and establish a counterfactual narrative in which the violence was indicative of a longstanding Muslim ‘grievance’ generated by abuse from non-Muslims, and that the city’s Muslims are actually very cuddly and well-behaved because they didn’t riot in August. The reality is that doctrinaire Muslims will not brook any criticism of their religion and will react violently against anyone who deigns to speak ‘disrespectfully’ of it, hence the stoning and bricking of school buses, the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh and routine death threats against numerous critics of Islam including Geert Wilders, Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon and Kurt Westergaard (who drew one of the cartoons of Mohammed in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten newspaper).

Of course, I do not wish to see such violence as witnessed at St Bede’s repeated, or indeed for anything worse to occur, and it is precisely for this reason that I am of the opinion that it should not be covered up and should instead be investigated thoroughly. Those responsible need to be prosecuted and, preferably, deported to their countries of ancestral origin along with their immediate families with no right to set foot in this country again. This is the only way in which the safety and well-being of Bradfordians who firmly identify with England rather than with Pakistan or anywhere else can be guaranteed.  

Tracy Shah: perfecting that muslimah Scowl 

Muslims call for War in France

When symbolic gestures are expressive of real political intent rooted in an underpinning ideology, they possess much power; but when such gestures are made with the objective of generating public approbation through tapping into culturally resonant themes without such intent, they are nothing more than cynical opportunism.

In France this month, we have witnessed the political Establishment passing two laws which tap directly into French national and cultural identity, and on the surface, appear to address two manifestations of a vigorous challenge to France’s secular identity – laïcité – by the country’s burgeoning Muslim population: street prayers and the wearing of the veil. Both have now been banned, yet there has been no effective enforcement of these laws. Many Muslim women continue to wear the veil, and many Muslims in general continue to ignore the prohibition of praying en masse in the street. By failing to observe the letter of the law, the French state has generated an even greater degree of contempt for its authority amongst the many millions of Muslims resident within its borders, for the latter can see that they can flout the law at will. This will serve to encourage the growth of parallel Sharia-governed Muslim enclaves that will be a drain on the state and a danger to indigenous French society.

Does what I have written mean that I approve of the veil or of street prayers? Of course not! However, simply banning the overt manifestations of doctrinaire Muslim identity does nothing to remove the ideology from its human carriers, and that is where the danger lies. Banning burqas, niqabs and street prayers does not stop the growth of France’s Muslim population, particularly when the bans are not enforced. If they were to be enforced, this would at a minimum act as a minor deterrent to further Muslim immigration, but as there seems to be no intention to compel observance, such immigration will continue on a mass scale. Given the spectacular demographic growth of the Muslim component resident within French borders, such measures would anyway be rendered redundant at some point in the none-too-distant future, for once Muslims reach a critical demographic threshold they will be able to introduce Islamic dress codes, street prayers and Sharia via ‘democratic’ means. This is where the concepts of secularism and democracy fall apart when not rooted in nationalist identitarian politics.

Returning to the concrete situation in France, the ban on street prayers came into force on Friday 16 September and was immediately ignored by militant Muslims in Paris. Indeed, in the first of the videos below, you can see Muslims calling for war against the French state (and by extension the French people). The first three minutes or so consists mainly of an interview with one of these hotheads, before going on to show a sizeable group of Muslims marching through the streets of Paris letting forth some of their favourite chants such as “Allahu-akbar!” and “Death to the Jews!” At 4:51, the marchers stop to occupy a street and pray. For some reason, no police come forth to stop any of this. The protesters simply did as they wished, making the French state appear weak and irresolute, which is absolutely the wrong kind of message to send to colonising doctrinaire Islamic thugs such as these. Moreover, the makers of the video note that in Paris 28 million Euros of public money is being offered for the construction of a mosque masquerading as a “cultural centre”, money which could instead have been used to fund crèches and schools for Parisians. What a waste! 

Given the French state’s lack of desire to stand up to Islamisation on behalf of its people, it has fallen to political parties and movements outside of the Establishment to defend the French way of life and identity. The activists of Bloc Identitaire have been at the forefront of this struggle, and have sought to block the construction of two mosques in the past year by ‘contaminating’ the proposed building sites with pig’s blood and other pork products, as shown in the second and third videos below. This is of course imaginative and harms nobody, although it is a shame to see good ham and suckling pig go to waste. Unfortunately, these actions incurred the ire of two French organisations which can be seen as the equivalent of the UK’s UAF and Hope Not Hate: LICRA (League internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme) and SOS Racisme, which called for the videos to be removed and those involved to be prosecuted for "incitement to racial hatred". Rather than desiring the activists of Bloc Identitaire to be prosecuted, I wish them luck in their endeavours and congratulate them for their innovative responses to Islamisation. Vive le Bloc Identitaire! Their symbol – a black boar against a blue background – should serve as a totemic device around which Europeans opposed to Islamisation can unite. 

Muslim-Catholic Conflict hits St Bede’s in Bradford

The National Secular Society (NSS) today published a report on an outbreak of violence between religious gangs at Bradford’s St Bede’s School on Monday. Whereas Bradford’s Telegraph and Argus was somewhat coy about revealing the identity of one of the two factions, insulting the intelligence of its readers by referring to ‘Conflict between two faiths at a Bradford catholic school’ thereby singling out Christians, the NSS had no such inhibitions about identifying the Muslim begetters of violence who attacked school buses: 

Stones and half-bricks were thrown at the three buses and terrified pupils had to dodge the missiles which smashed windows causing £600 worth of damage.

This violence followed on from an earlier ‘stand-off’ between the two gangs. The fact is, the two don’t mix, and pupils should not have to suffer from being forced to study alongside Muslims. Such forcible mixing is harmful to the educational and personal development of non-Muslim pupils, and it is disgraceful that children’s futures are being blighted for the sake of politically correct and factually insupportable platitudes concerning the desirability of this type of mixed education. Witness the result of the enforced bussing of Muslim pupils from Swindon to the Ridgeway School in the Wiltshire village of Wroughton: a pupil named Henry Webster almost losing his life after falling victim to a vicious hammer attack by a Muslim gang.

Comments left on the Telegraph and Argus website seem to back up the idea that the violence was one-sided and perpetrated by Muslim pupils. One commenter claimed that “the older brothers, [and] cousins” of the Muslim attackers came out to assist them in bricking the buses. Another commenter stated that the print version of the Telegraph and Argus reported that "unrest was sparked by a Year 11 class discussion over religion" in which Muslims had provoked their Catholic classmates with derogatory remarks. 

Heaton Labour Councillor Imdad Hussain intervened stating that talks were needed between parents and pupils from both sides to avoid an escalation into what the NSS described as ‘full-scale gang warfare’. However, what is really required of course is the punishment and expulsion of those Muslim pupils who engaged in this utterly unjustifiable act of violence, as well as the arrest and imprisonment of any other family members who turned up to assist in this crime. By calling for 'talks', Hussain seems to be implying that there is some form of moral equivalence between the two sides. So far as I can see, this is not the case, for there is one clear aggressor and the aggressor must be dealt with firmly rather than pandered to. This is the only approach that will nip violence in the bud.

This sort of predatory violence has of course bedevilled Bradford for many years, as exemplified by a brutal attack upon an 89-year-old English woman in Lister Park (situated next to St Bede’s) and an assault upon an English pensioner couple by a Muslim gang within a fortnight of each other in June 2009. Neighbouring Dewsbury, with its large and growing Islamic enclaves, has also witnessed attacks upon English residents and buses. There are many other cases of aggression - including assault, arson and death threats – which go unreported either because the victims fear being stigmatised as ‘racists’, or because the media and politicians are unwilling to face up to it because of fears over what they term ‘community cohesion’ (in reality, a fear of losing Muslim bloc votes). It is against such a backdrop of ethno-religious aggression that the incident at St Bede’s should be viewed.  

St Bede's Catholic Grammar School, Bradford

 

 

March for a Secular Europe: Hmm

Rain was forecast but held off until later in the day, as a disparate collection of individuals and organisations gathered together for last Saturday’s ‘March for a Secular Europe’ near London’s Embankment. The title of the march was rather ambitious, particularly when considering that the protesters numbered no more than some 250 to 300 people. It was a peaceful and somewhat sedate affair, but the whistles of the self-declared LGBT contingent were an irritant, and placards demanding such things as ‘equal reproductive rights for lesbians’ struck me as out of place and not something with which I wished to be associated. Indeed, judging by a considerable number of such slogans, the protest appeared to have been hijacked by the militant homosexual lobby for concerns highly tangential to secularism. 

Most of the other banners and placards, irritatingly, seemed to concentrate on the rather soft and largely irrelevant target of Catholicism, rather than the obviously dangerous and alien ‘religion of peace’ [sic]. Nonetheless, Maryam Namazie did turn up at the final destination opposite Downing Street to deliver a speech in which she attacked Sharia, but then sought to excoriate unspecified ‘racists’ (evidently the unjustly stigmatised EDL and SIOE singled out for attack in her recent ill-researched ‘Enemies Not Allies’ report) and to embroil us in a global struggle against political Islam. That is her wont, naturally. It is as much of a characteristic of Namazie as her apparent aversion to exercise, clearly demonstrated by her taking a rickshaw between Trafalgar Square and Red Lion Square at a One Law for All protest a couple of years back, whilst everyone else marched the very modest distance between the two locations. I didn’t see her on Saturday’s march, so take it that whilst the other protesters were taking a leisurely stroll along the Embankment and up Parliament Street, she was probably busying herself with eating pies or whatever their Iranian equivalent may be. 

As for the other speakers, they were far from inspiring. This wasn’t helped by an inadequate PA system which rendered them largely inaudible, and the lack of any clearly defined objectives on the part of the protest. Never have I witnessed such a high proportion of a crowd (if this rapidly diminishing knot of people could be dignified with such an appellation) flake off during the keynote speeches. Peter Tatchell turned up to say something, but I can’t remember what. I’ve a feeling that he wasn’t talking about secularism per se however.

When did I leave? A long time before the end. Was it worth it? I can think of other rather more productive and enjoyable things that I could be doing on a Saturday. Would I go on another such march? Probably not. It was too unfocused and seemed to have degenerated into a pseudo-LGBT outing (pardon the pun), which is not something I’d wish to be involved in. Rather like train spotting, I’d rather leave ‘LGBT’ issues to those for whom they are a hobby. I’m not interested in either. Still, at least a number of people were afforded some hilarity by the sight of the self-styled transgender, lesbian biker witch, which was possessed of long greasy greying hair and a bald patch. Rather stomach-churning really. At least it wasn’t asking for ‘reproductive rights’. That said, I can imagine it giving birth to many fleas from its unkempt and greasy hatchery.

UKIP: Nigel Farage makes a Bid for the Working Class Vote

Admittedly, this piece is rather late in the day, with Farage having delivered his conference speech on 9 September. Still, it is worth examining what it contained for it could have implications for other parties scrabbling after the highly fragmented nationalist vote in England.

Farage appeared buoyant in his address, claiming early on that UKIP is beginning to eclipse the Liberal Democrats as the third party in some areas such as London and the North, as well as amongst voters under 24. Given that Liberal Democrat support has slumped to very low levels of late (many national polls placing them at 9% over the past month), this should not come as a surprise, for during the depths of the Expenses Scandal two years ago, UKIP enjoyed a brief moment in the sun when up to 19% of those polled claimed that they’d vote for the party. This support remained long enough for them to perform relatively well at the last EU Elections (taking 13 seats with 16.5% of the vote) but didn’t translate into a Westminster breakthrough last year, with Farage himself scoring the best share of the vote for any UKIP candidate at 17.4%. Nonetheless, Farage also drew attention to the fact that UKIP had taken second place in the Barnsley Central by-election in March, but even so, it should be borne in mind that in this Labour bailiwick their candidate Jane Collins managed to secure only 12.2% of the vote.

I have often characterised UKIP as being a traditional ‘Atlanticist Tory’ party, and this characterisation seems to me to remain pretty accurate. Indeed, Farage does let loose with a rather fogeyish statement which nonetheless contains much truth: “We are being led by a group of college kids, with no experience of the real world and who always put their careers first.” Noting with relish the demise of the Liberal Democrats since the formation of the ConDem Coalition, he stated that their name was somewhat paradoxical, given that they were “neither liberal nor democratic”.

He inveighed against the “betrayal of working class people in this country by Labour by pursuing an open door immigration policy depriving British workers of jobs,” and attacked the Labour “myth” propagated since 2004 that British workers are “lazy”: “There are huge numbers of good ordinary decent people in this country that want to work, that want to obey the law . . . [and] now UKIP is the champion for those people and not the Labour Party.” Although there is truth in this statement, I remain uneasy about aspects of UKIP’s economic policy which involve the increasing privatisation of the NHS and education. 

The Conservative Party too was singled out for attack: “The myth that the Conservatives will stand up for the nation has begun to unravel.” True.

Turning to an announcement of direct relevance to one of the small nationalist parties, Farage announced that on 8 September the UKIP National Executive Committee had taken the decision that the party should campaign for an English parliament. Although this is only one of the policies held by the English Democrats, it is one pivotal to their existence, so UKIP’s decision could have a significant bearing upon the future of the former party. Out of the two, I would much rather see the English Democrats thrive, as their economic policies are more in tune with my way of thinking, but UKIP has the higher media profile and more funding, both of which place it at a distinct advantage in terms of prospects for growth as the three main parties continue to alienate significant sections of their core support. 

Farage made a direct appeal to English nationalist sentiment, claiming that this decision had been prompted by “more than just the West Lothian Question”, stating that our leaders are “ashamed of the very word ‘England’” and that “We are discouraged from describing ourselves as English.” The UKIP NEC has decided that the only way to save the Union is to allow the English parity with the Welsh, Scots and Ulster Irish by providing them with a parliament of their own.

UKIP remains the only nationally visible non-toxic political party in England that could be described in some respects as nationalist. It has built links with parties of a similar stance elsewhere in Europe, including the True Finns, the leader of which – Timo Soini – also addressed the UKIP Conference (see second video below). Farage attempted to associate his party with the growth of populist parties and movements across northern Europe, arguing that this flowering represents the search on the part of peoples in these countries for a positive alternative, for “a new kind of politics”, rather than being a mere reaction to the contemporary economic situation.

In the wake of this conference, whither the English Democrats? What practical political space remains for them?

David Cameron’s Russian Lessons

How the Russians, not normally renowned for their mirth, managed to keep straight faces when David Cameron attempted to speak their language at the start of his visit to their country, it is hard to fathom. He executed (a most appropriate term in this context) the delivery in such a fashion as to render it nigh on incomprehensible to a native-English speaker with a pretty good grasp of Russian. I have a feeling that the famous ‘That’s Life’ speaking dog, renowned for saying “sausages”, could not have been any less comprehensible. It was as if some foreign dignitary visiting England were to place himself proudly before the assembled representatives of the mass media and say “ooee lugf oor cuntrow. Digevva ooee ah stwonga.” Actually, I can’t remember what Cameron said in Russian (it was rather hard to take in, or indeed to decipher), or the English translation that usefully followed, but it did involve the word “digevva” (sorry, that should be “together”).

Thus, Cameron’s visit to Russia started how it would proceed: embarrassingly. He and his team had arrived in Moscow carrying the conviction that these Russian Johnnies were jolly indecent chaps, and needed a good talking to about such things as human rights and dealing with corruption (strangely, I don’t recall British governmental delegations to Saudi Arabia behaving in such a manner or raising these issues). David and Willie Hague looked dreadfully cross, and chastised their hosts about their disgraceful behaviour.

Dave appeared to strike up a reasonable rapport with amiable Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, but as for Putin, the once-and-future Tsar (sorry! Meant to say “President”), he exuded all the warmth of a tank of liquid nitrogen. The body language and facial expressions in the video below display the reality of the power relationship between the Russian and British governments: a contemptuous Putin, bored and seemingly a little irritated at the need to exchange diplomatic pleasantries with the Cameron administration; Cameron and Hague discomfited, looking submissive and slightly afraid. Russia may be an ailing great power, but it is still a state with massive reserves of natural resources and an enormous military machine. It will have a role to play in the geopolitical future, whereas the UK . . . what of it? Are not its leaders intent on continuing our drawn-out process of national suicide?

David Cameron ‘revealed’ that he had been approached by theKGB whilst on a trip to the Soviet Union in 1985, perhaps with a view to him becoming a spy. However, it would appear that the latter decided that the future Bullingdon boy’s lack of linguistic aptitude, as well as his ignorance of social conditions in England, rendered him useless to their aims. So, I suspect that so far as the Russian elite goes Dave, it’s not so much “do svidaniya” as “proshchaite!”

Videos from Muslims Against Crusades and EDL 9/11 Protests

More videos have come to light of today’s Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) protest and EDL counter protest near the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square. The first of the videos shows both MAC and the EDL, as well as a small group of non-doctrinaire Muslims forming a third group, embittered at MAC sullying their reputation. One of the signs held aloft by a member of the latter group read: ‘If you want Sharia, go to Saudi’. Good man!

As for MAC, the slogans on their placards were of the same nature as those displayed last year, some variations upon previous themes including: ‘United States – Terrorist State’, ‘Islam is for the Whole of Mankind’ and ‘9/11: Beginning of the end for Democracy’. The police allowed MAC to conduct their protest, whilst eventually shunting away members of the EDL who had come to express their objection to Choudary’s group’s violation of the act of remembrance. The only manhandling by the police witnessed in either video occurs in the first, involving a young EDL supporter. Nonetheless, it was wise to ensure that the two groups were kept physically apart from each other.

The second video is comprised only of excerpts from MAC’s demonstration: chanting, speeches and the burning of the American flag.

Two Members of EDL Stabbed
According to the Casuals United blog, two EDL members were stabbed today and there have been unconfirmed reports that two MAC supporters were arrested. It is stated that the stabbing was captured on video by a female member of the EDL, which should hopefully prove sufficient to identify the culprits. The Demotix website states that violence flared between MAC and the EDL on the Edgeware Road after the demonstration in Grosvenor Square had finished, with the stabbings occuring outside of a JD Wetherspoon's pub. A police forensics team is reported as having secured the site. Reports suggest that there were between 50 and 100 EDL supporters present at the time, but details at this stage remain sketchy.

Some background can be found at today’s earlier post, ‘Loud, Bearded and MAC: Muslims Against Crusades latest 9/11 Protest’.

Catharsis in Berlin: Oskar Freysinger’s Speech

Speaking at the recent Die Freiheit Conference in Berlin, Swiss People’s Party MP Oskar Freysinger delivered a passionate and truthful speech, bringing forth a storm of applause from the audience; applause and enthusiasm that expressed the collective catharsis of people who have long been told that they must respect and adhere to the lies of multiculturalist dogma. The sense of relief and jubilation that at last they may speak and think freely, devoid of the mental shackles of political correctness with respect to Islam and the demographic threat posed by Islamisation, is electric.

It is not too late to save our European societies and cultures, grown from a common stock, as an awakening is spreading through the European peoples about the demographic and ideological crises that we face. The decadent globalist political elites within our societies may cleave to their neo-liberal economic orthodoxies and attendant ideology of multiculturalism and desire for mass immigration, but the falsehood and essential harmfulness of their position is becoming ever more apparent. Freysinger is but one voice, albeit a very powerful one, amongst a growing chorus of European voices calling for a solution to the clear existential threat that we face. Hat tip to Frank Kitman for posting the following video on his blog.

German Law Professor: “The problem is with the Muslims”

It would seem that Russia Today now provides far more objective news about EU countries than the mainstream media outlets based in those countries themselves. The following is a fascinating interview with Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Professor of Law at Erlangen-Nurnberg University, in which he outlines his reasons for believing that the concept of a European superstate was doomed to failure from the outset. His most interesting and indeed ‘contentious' comments come at 4 minutes and 1 second into the interview, in which he talks about the failure of multiculturalism in European societies, with specific and direct reference to Islam as being a hostile and unassimilable system of belief.

Following German politician Thilo Sarrazin’s groundbreaking honesty about Islam and multiculturalism in contemporary Germany, it is heartening news to see another German of high social standing make the same points. In England however, it remains impossible to voice such views without having your career destroyed. Are we beginning to witness a gradual awakening on the part of some mainstream figures in European nations with respect to the real ideological and demographic threat of Islamisation? If so, when will they call for practical action to remove this problem?

A transcript of the latter part of the interview taken from the Russia Today website is reproduced after the interview. 

RT: Multiculturalism has failed, say European leaders. But what are the actual consequences of that failure?

KAS: If by multiculturalism you mean people from southern Europe, Germany, northern Europe, Hungary, Poland, Russia, all European nations, living together, then no, it has not failed. There is no problem at all.

The problem is with the Muslims. It’s not the people who constitute the problem, but Islam. And Islam comes with Muslim people. They build active groups that promote Islam and advocate the establishment of Sharia law. And Sharia law, particular its criminal section, is absolutely impossible for European relationships. We have religious pluralism in Europe and not a single religion is dominant. But Islam is the religion that tolerates another religion as long as it has no power. 

Secularization was the biggest political event for Europe. It meant thatstate and church were divided and no one is entitled to impose its religion. Iam determined against any tolerance of Sharia law. But it has nothing to dowith tolerating Muslim people.

Bloc Identitaire stage “Die in” against anti-white Racism in Dijon

Let us for a moment imagine the following situation: you have travelled to the centre of an attractive provincial city for the afternoon, and whilst you are walking along a pedestrianised street you suddenly see a small group of people. All are dressed similarly, and walk but briefly before calmly assuming prone and supine positions on the street, as if dead; clothing spattered with red, suggesting blood. Their silent forms lie still, bringing to mind the plaster casts of the victims lost to the Vesuvian eruption of AD 79. Another member of the group appears with a megaphone, places signs on their bodies and starts to address the shoppers. What is going on?

The French political group Bloc Identitaire is innovative and unorthodox, as was reflected last Saturday in its novel approach to highlighting the phenomenon of anti-white racism with reference to the specific case of a recent racially motivated murder in Dijon, about which the authorities have chosen to remain silent. A group of activists took their message to the centre of Dijon through employing an eye-catching piece of street theatre – a “Die in” against anti-white racism. This was followed by a leafleting session distributing the flyer shown below entitled ‘Open Season for hunting Whites in Dijon!’

Having watched the video below, consider this: would it have been possible to do something such as this in the UK? Somehow, I suspect that had anyone chosen to highlight anti-white racism in such a fashion here, they’d probably have found themselves promptly arrested and charged with ‘inciting racial hatred’. What follows is a translation of the Burgundy Bloc Identitaire press release and video of the “Die in”.

Press release dated 4 September, Bloc Identitaire

Lie-down against anti-white Racism: “Die in” Identitaire in Dijon

Last week, a young European of 15 years of age was lynched by an ethnic gang in the very centre of the city of Dijon, to cries of “Let’s hunt some white”. This racist aggression takes place in a context of the increase in anti-white racism everywhere in France.

Contacted by telephone several times by identitarian militants, neither the municipality of Dijon nor the Prefecture nor the deputies have wished to publicly condemn this racist aggression, using as a pretext the fact that they are awaiting the outcome of the inquest. Yet, when it happens that such aggression touches the African, Maghrebian, Jewish or Asian community, the condemnation by elected representatives of this racism is then immediate, whether the inquest is ongoing or not.

In response to the unhealthy silence of local elected representatives, this Saturday 3 September in the middle of the afternoon, a dozen identitarian militants met on the Rue du Bourg, then packed full of passers-by, so as to perform a “die-in” in the middle of the crowd. This theatrical performance was aimed at heightening the awareness of the people of Dijon to the existence of an anti-white racism. The meaning of the militants lying on the ground, their clothes stained with blood, bearing the signs “Anti-white racism kills”, wasn’t lost on the numerous passers-by.

Then seizing the megaphone, the reality of anti-white racism was explained, enumerating identical acts of aggression, often lethal, which have struck the French of European origin these past years. Finally, several hundred leaflets denouncing the mute silence of local elected officials were distributed on the spot, then to neighbouring café terraces, as well as on the windscreens of parked cars.

The Identitarians of Burgundy will continue to appeal totheir networks of sympathisers, and will multiply their actions ofconsciousness-raising, so that they call for the accountability of our electedofficials, and that until there is an official condemnation, firm anddefinitive of the anti-white racism on their part.

John Humphrys on Luton, Islam and the EDL: has the Penny dropped?

One of the irksome aspects of the BBC radio ‘Listen again’ facility is the fact that recordings of broadcasts remain available for only a week after their initial airing. Nonetheless, here is the link should you wish to give it a try.

Having been in a rush this morning, I caught only part of John Humphrys’s report on Luton, and thus listened to it in full this evening. Indeed, I had earlier wondered if I had still been half asleep when I heard his conclusion to the piece, as it struck me that Humphrys seemed to be on the dawn of realising the reality of Islamisation and the threat that it poses to England and the English. Astonishingly, it seems that this may be the case. If so, this will mark a watershed moment for one of the country’s most influential political broadcasters.

The report was run as part of the BBC’s build up to the tenth anniversary of 9/11, and although entitled ‘9/11 ‘led to rise inIslamophobia’’, the airtime afforded to Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon meant that the EDL perspective had a chance to reach millions of listeners across the country. The EDL leader, currently under arrest and staging a hunger strike, acquitted himself with aplomb, and not once did the report refer to the EDL as ‘far-right’, which was a staggering achievement for the BBC given its record on this score.

Luton had been selected as the location for the report not only because that is where the EDL was born, but also because of the events that functioned as the catalyst to its formation: the barracking of the Royal Anglian Regiment by a group of Islamists during their homecoming parade in 2009 and the fact that the 7/7 bombers departed from the town on the morning that they unleashed wanton carnage in London in 2005. The report was set out in typical BBC style, seemingly posing a question whilst structuring the report in such a fashion as to make the answer implicit and predetermined, thus in this instance it was a case of contrasting Islamist views with those of the EDL, with the “Muslim community” being cast in the role of the moderate majority. The clear implication was that the Islamist and EDL perspectives ought to be perceived as equally ‘extreme’ and repugnant, and that those of the “Muslim community” should be applauded. Now, that of course means that the English view was structurally displaced and portrayed as by definition ‘extreme’. What a dreadful pass we have come to when our own country’s state broadcaster deliberately portrays our native population as beyond the pale! Nonetheless, as will be seen, the unpleasant reality of what has happened to Luton appears to have even made some impression upon Humphrys.

Thus, the report opened with references to halal butchers, sari shops and women wearing mostly full Islamic dress with faces covered – “Nothing unusual in Britain today”, dutifully noted Humphrys, before stating that Luton has “acquired a reputation as a breeding ground for Islamic extremism” which “the city fathers” think is “rubbish”. Before the interviews commence the scene is finally set with the comment: “But listen to these voices, all people born and bred in Luton, and you’ll hear the story of a town divided.”

Most of the report consisted of interviews with Farasat Latif (Imam at the Al Ghurabaa Mosque), Luton Islamist Sayful Islam and EDL Leader Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon). Humphrys seemed to be taken aback both by the positions of Sayful Islam and Tommy Robinson, but his concluding remarks are interesting, and perhaps suggests that Humphrys is awakening to the fact that the EDL is not an organisation of paranoid football hooligans, but a genuine English patriotic movement seeking to preserve the English way of life from an all-too-real Islamic threat. Below I provide a transcript of some of the key parts of the report. Note in particular the last three paragraphs that taken together seem to indicate Humphrys’s dawning realisation that all is not well with the BBC’s official line with respect to the ‘religion of peace’ (sic).

Sayful Islam (formerly of the banned organisation Al-Muhajiroun): 

“What I would describe myself as is someone who doesn’t want to compromise in terms of Islam. If I believe in Islam, and if I practise Islam and if I’m called to Islam, I will not compromise on any aspect of that because obviously if I do then I might fall into falsehood, and when I do something like that, you see a clash of civilisations where you see the Islamic way of life does clash with the Western way of life: stuff like British values and British identity obviously is something that I will never adhere to or follow”

John Humphrys:

“But you live here?”

Sayful Islam:

“Yeah, of course I do live here and I have lived here for many years. I’ve lived here all my life. Britain claims to be a place where you have freedom, where you have the right to practise whatever you want to. Then why don’t I have the right to practise Islam?”

Humphrys went on to note that 60% of the population in the area he was visiting was Muslim:

“The English Defence League is appalled by that. Set up and run by a Luton businessman Tommy Robinson, the EDL has been remarkably successful in a very short time at getting people around the country to come out onto the streets to protest against what they see as a growing threat from Islam.”

 Tommy Robinson:

“Thirty years ago in this town there was 3,000 Muslims and one mosque yeah. If you’d have said to people thirty years ago, in thirty years time there will be 19 mosques, there’ll be 30, 40, 50,000 Muslims, they’ll be banning the emblem of St George in your school, they’ll be opening a prayer centre in the Arndale Centre, they’ll be attacking your troops when they’re walking home, they’ll have stalls set up promoting jihad and extremism every single week in the town, thirty years ago people would have said “never, that’s not going to happen in Luton”, but it’s happened. At the end of the day Islamic demographics are terrifying; the birth-rate and the statistics are terrifying.”

John Humphrys:

“Are you just racists?”

Tommy Robinson:

“I’m not racist at all, I completely hate racism. We’ve defeated Nazism yet we’re allowing Islamism to flourish because it goes under the banner of a religion.”

John Humphrys:

“But aren’t you promoting hatred against them?”

Tommy Robinson:

“We don’t do anything out of hate we do it out of love; love for Christianity, love for our culture, love for my kids’ futures.”

John Humphrys:

“At the heart of this conflict is obviously fear. But is it of fear of Islamic terrorism, another 9/11, or is it something else? Robinson says what his organisation fears is Sharia Law.”

Tommy Robinson:

“In 2003 the European Court of Human Rights outlawed Sharia Law in Europe and said that it’s incompatible with Western democracy because of their views on homosexuals, their views on women and their views on infidels – that’s all of us. It’s incompatible. It won’t work. And all we see now is a louder, louder voice and a louder call for Sharia Law, and aspects of Sharia Law to be implemented in the British legal system.”

John Humphrys:

“More moderate Muslims dismiss that out of hand. Sharia simply enables them to practise their religion they say, to observe their culture. It’s not law in any meaningful sense. But Sayful Islam delivers what sounds a rather chilling warning.”

Sayful Islam:

“I believe that Sharia is the alternative. The fact that I am calling for [an] Islamic state, a state that would implement Sharia, it’s not just the Muslims that want an alternative, we can see even now non-Muslims are searching for an alternative, uh social fabric of this society even the economic, political are collapsing and this is where people like myself come along and we present this alternative which I believe is Islam.”

John Humphrys:

“That’s exactly what the English Defence League fears, or maybe we should call it the Englishness Defence League. What’s happened here in Luton over the past ten years suggests that it’s no longer a threat to the security of England that so many fear, it’s more a threat to the English way of life.”

Better late than never John, eh?

Marine Le Pen on Muslim Street Prayers

Marine Le Pen is of course the Front National’s candidate in the 2012 French presidential elections and is riding high the country’s opinion polls, which suggest that she is likely to be one of the three most popular candidates. Unfortunately, if she does manage to make it through to the second round of voting, it is probable that as in the 2002 presidential election when her father went head-to-head with incumbent President Jacques Chirac that the other parties will unite to call for their supporters to vote for whoever is left standing against her. The likelihood of a Front National victory is thus slim, but nonetheless should not be discounted altogether.

Back in 1998, Guillaume Faye made a number of observations re political opposition to the Front National, noting that it arose from a fear of the party’s genuinely radical alternative. As in the UK, where nationalists of all stripes are routinely and unjustly tarred with the ‘Nazi’ brush, Faye notes that this tactic has been repeatedly used in an effort to baselessly stigmatise the Front. In his opinion, its opponents have sought to:

‘gag and undermine the Front because it seeks to re-establish the moral contract between the people and its leaders. Hence, it is accused of being immoral. But facts will speak for themselves – the politicians and the media will not be able to twist them. So the only path open to the system is not to ban the Front National but abolish the people. It is already trying to do so. Immigration is one of its weapons, but it is a double-edged sword, for the system – and I will stress this once more – is forgetting about an essential player: Islam.’ (Faye, Guillaume (2010/1998), Archeofuturism, Arktos, United Kingdom, p. 142).

Faye’s concern with Islamisation – which he sees as being Europe’s primary existential threat, rooted in the de facto colonisation of the continent – is something that separates him from a number of figures in the Nouvelle Droite - such as Alain de Benoist - from which he sprang. More generally however, Islamisation has emerged as a contentious political problem in France, for doctrinaire Islam’s inability to allow a separation between the secular and the ‘spiritual’ strikes at the very heart of French republican identity with its strict tradition of secularism – laïcité.

As elsewhere across the world and in other European countries in particular, Muslims are becoming emboldened with respect to public displays of religiosity, a symptom of this being their willingness to break the law by holding Friday prayers and blocking streets in cities such as Paris, Nice and Marseilles. This sense of boldness and willingness to disregard the law has been bolstered by the fact that Muslims are now estimated to comprise somewhere in the region of 5-10% of the population; a proportion that has grown rapidly through mass immigration and a birth rate which greatly exceeds that of the native French population. Moreover, the authorities have generally turned a blind eye to this phenomenon, thereby allowing it to become entrenched and grow.

Given the reluctance of the French political establishment to acknowledge let alone deal with the Islamisation problem, Marine Le Pen has decided to take a symbolic stand on Muslim street prayers which she roundly condemns in her video address below. This is sure to strike a chord with a significant section of the native French electorate, but you can be sure that there will be a media storm in which Madame Le Pen is accused of the non-existent phenomenon of ‘Islamophobia’ as well as ‘racism’, and that her opponents will attempt to avoid rational debate because there is no rational debate to be had: Muslims who block the streets with their prayers are breaking the law. Can you imagine a contender for high office voicing such sentiments in the UK? Me neither, which is a pity.

The text below preceding the video is translated from the Bivouac-ID blog as it provides an interesting insight into a French secularist perspective on Le Pen’s speech:

Marine Le Pen’s Speech on Street Prayers

A speech which should certainly be viewed against the backdrop of the forthcoming electoral contest, but where real questions are clearly and courageously posed without evasive political language. Why aren’t the nominees of the other parties able or willing to do as much?

The problem posed by Islam is posed to the whole French nation, and must naturally transcend political rivalries.

Muslim Males attack defenceless EDL Woman in the Street

The three videos below amply illustrate the reality of the threat posed to our country by Islamic colonisation. How? Quite simply because they show the nature of a significant section of the supposedly 'peaceful' and 'vibrant' Muslim 'community' that 'enriches' London. As I remarked in my piece which prefaced the EDL's Tower Hamlets demo, the large-scale of the police operation reflected not the violence expected from the EDL, but from Muslim residents and the Communist agitators of Unite Against Fascism (UAF).

In the first video, you will see a female EDL supporter who has been dragged from her coach set upon and kicked in the head by a group of Muslim males. In the second, you will see Muslim males attack the coach with a variety of missiles and breaking its windows, and in the third you will see two UAF 'anti-fascists' laughing and joking about the violence unleashed upon the woman shown in the first video. Watch the following and see if you still honestly believe that the presence of this 'community' (i.e. colony) 'enriches' London. The Casuals United blog has more information on what happened to the woman here.

UAF gloat over EDL woman dragged out of coach and punched in face

Muslim preaches to Queen Beatrix at Amsterdam Concert

As can be seen from the videos below, something truly peculiar happened at a classical concert held in Amsterdam on Saturday. A Muslim appeared in front of the orchestra and began to address the audience about the wonders of Islam until removed by security guards after perplexed members of the orchestra had filed off of the stage. As can be seen from her facial expression in the first video, Queen Beatrix was nonplussed by this bizarre spectacle. Further information on the story can be found at Jihadwatch. Also, don’t forget that this Channel 4 will be screening a new documentary at 8pm this evening: The Ground Zero Mosque.

The Russian Political Elite capitulates to Islamisation

For the second year running, thousands of Muslims brought chaos to the streets of Moscow on 30 August through staging mass prayers to mark Eid ul-Fitr, or Uraza Bayram as the Russians call it. Although the Mayor of Moscow – Sergei Sobyanin – arranged one of the pavilions in Sokolniki Park to be equipped with sufficient prayer mats for 9,000 worshippers, this was left largely empty, whilst practising Muslims preferred to show their strength by blocking the streets, with most of them – some 50,000 – congregating near the city’s ‘Cathedral Mosque’, causing great disruption to commuters. A further 15,000 gathered at and around the mosque on Bolshaya Tatarskaya Street. The end of prayers brought problems too, with crushes being experienced at the Prospekt Mira and Rizhskaia Metro stations. The English-language version of Pravda reports:

The prayers ended at 10:00 a.m., and thousands of people headed back to the metro. A human stampede was formed near the entrance to the station. Police officers were trying to ask the believers to walk towards two other stations nearby. Another stampede appeared at 10:30 near Rizhskaya metro station. The people were storming the entrance to the station. Muscovites were hugging the walls, children were crying. Hundreds of people were late for work.

This spectacle never used to occur in Moscow, so one must pose the question: why now? What is it that has prompted tens of thousands of practising Muslims to purposefully bring sections of the capital to a standstill in a display of mass strength? How does the Russian political elite view this, and what are the opinions of non-Muslim Muscovites and Russians more generally?

Moscow possesses four mosques, yet the Muslim population of the city is growing at a rapid rate fuelled largely by Muslim immigration from the former Soviet Muslim states of the ‘near abroad’. However, its size is also augmented by internal migration from the traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the Russian Federation itself, such as Tatarstan (see this article for information on generational radicalisation amongst the Tatars) and Bashkortostan. Provisional figures from the 2010 census suggest that Moscow has a population of circa 11.5 million, but there are also many illegal residents who will not have been included in this figure. A considerable proportion of the city’s Muslim population falls into the category of ‘illegal guest workers’

Estimates for the number of Muslim residents vary considerably, with most settling on a figure somewhere in the region of 1.2 to 2 million. These seem credible, but one suggestion that this figure could be as high as 5 million seems untenable to me. Naturally, even if only 10% of Moscow’s Muslim population were to be classed as ‘practising’, four mosques would not be able to accommodate 120,000 to 200,000 people. Thus, as in Paris and Nice, many Muslims have decided that they will pray in the streets and disrupt everyday life in the city if need be with their mass displays of ‘piety’. As is the case with many modern European metropolises, other notable examples being London and Paris, a declining indigenous birth-rate and mass immigration from the former colonies – particularly Muslim ones - is having a negative impact on the character of Moscow. Although the process is not as far advanced as in London, Muscovites could soon start feeling themselves to be strangers in their own city, as many remaining Londoners do in theirs. If current demographic trends continue, Russia itself will be a Muslim majority state by 2050: one in possession of thousands of nuclear warheads.

Returning to the question of the attitude of the Russian political elite to Islam, we find a number of comments from leading politicians on the recent end of Ramadan in the left-wing newspaper Komsomol’skaia pravda. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was quoted as saying:

“Reviving traditional Islamic values assists in the conservation of Russia’s cultural diversity.” Moreover, in his Ramadan message the paper stated that he “remarked upon the contribution of Muslim society to the strengthening of peace in Russia, declaring that the ummah inculcates amongst its youth a sense of tolerance and respect for members of other peoples.”

Current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was reported as having “valued the contribution of Muslim society to the life of the country” and “remarked that the position of the Muslim Ummah with respect to extremism, in particular, to attempts to transform the traditional values of the religion, sowing enmity and intolerance, needed attention.” He concluded by stating that Islam “receives the support of the whole of society, aiding in the preservation of civil peace and agreement in the country.”

Most gushing of all in his Ramadan greetings (evidently with an eye on the Muslim vote) was Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobianin in a special telegram addressed to Muslims: “The joyous holiday of Eid ul-Fitr possesses a great significance in the life of Muslims. This is a time of moral improvement, when the faithful especially deeply acknowledge and respect the high spiritual ideals – the values of goodness, philanthropy and caring for one’s neighbours.”

Quite clearly, these key figures at the apex of the Russian state are propagandising a view of Islam very much in line with the old Soviet doctrine of druzhba narodov – the friendship of peoples – but in this instance substituting Islam for nationality. This however, is not necessarily a position shared by ethnic Russians – russkie.

Following last year’s Eid ul-Fitr disruptions to life in Moscow, Der Spiegel ran a piece on Russian nationalists mobilising a campaign to prevent the construction of a mosque in the Tekstilshchiki district of the city which has been dubbed Moscow's 'ground zero mosque'. It revealed that the proposed mosque would only be one of up to 40 that the Moscow Council of Muftis wish to see available to Muslims in the capital. Local residents, discomfited by the prospect of a mosque being built on a rare green space used for recreational purposes in Tekstilshchiki, have thus objected to its construction on the grounds that it will deny them of use of such a convenient facility. In an effort to prevent it from going ahead, protestors have been planting saplings in the hope that this area of ground can be preserved as a park instead. This campaign has infuriated Muslims, with Der Spiegel noting that Imam Ildar Aljautdinov has warned ‘that some Muslims may become radicalised if they don’t have mosques to worship in.“We must build more mosques,” he says. “Otherwise something bad will replace the religion.”’

As you can see from Aljautdinov's remarks, doctrinaire Muslims are applying the same bullyboy tactics in Moscow as in England and elsewhere in Europe: submit to our demands or we shall not be responsible for the violence unleashed by our co-religionists.

Returning to the recent chaos to hit Moscow, the video and photographs below show the scale of the Muslim assertion of ownership of the city’s streets. Who in Russia will stand up to this? Кто в России защитит русского народа от исламизации?

Russian Woman struggles to get to Work

Sokolniki Warehouse devoid of Worshippers

Video: Islamo-Marxist Mob confronts Police

As mentioned in previous posts today, the EDL static demonstration which ended up being held outside of Aldgate Underground Station appears to have been relatively peaceful, whereas it is evident from the following video of a slogan-spouting mob, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP)-led UAF counter-demonstration appears to have been a rather less peaceable affair. Note how they violate Theresa May's banning order on marches with impunity and physically confront the police. Why didn't the police stop this? They wouldn't have put up with the same sort of behaviour from the EDL, and they didn't.

What the following video amply demonstrates is the UAF willingness to use violence and the fact that its supporters would have sought violent confrontation with the EDL had they been allowed to get near them. It is time that the media came clean about the origins of the bulk of the violence that it reports as being 'associated with' EDL demos, and admit that the perpetrators of this violence are predominantly communist agitators and their Muslim cohorts. At least the recent intense efforts by the Communist front groups UAF, 'Hope Not Hate' and Searchlight to portray the EDL as a 'far-right' terrorist threat seem to have been largely dismissed by the police now.

Video of EDL marching past Tower of London

The first video possesses an unfortunate title which I presume has been allocated by a supporter of UAF. However, it does show a large number of EDL supporters marching out of Tower Hamlets past the Tower of London. Note the large police presence. The second shows the marchers crossing Tower Bridge. It seems that today's demonstration has passed off relatively peacefully, so congratulations to the EDL stewards for ensuring that this was the case.

Video: Tommy Robinson aka Stephen Lennon addresses EDL Tower Hamlets Demo

The first of the following videos shows Stephen Lennon (Tommy Robinson) emerging from his bizarre disguise as a rabbi to address today's EDL supporters at the Tower Hamlets demo. A report on the Inspector Gadget blog suggested that he was arrested for breaking his conditions of bail, whilst one comment beneath the said article claimed that he managed to evade detention and escaped into the crowd. The second video shows a large group of EDL supporters stuck at King's Cross owing to obstructive action by members of the RMT union which used the pretext of 'health and safety' legislation to prevent them from using the underground station to travel to Tower Hamlets for the demo. The station was reopened some 20 minutes or so after the demo had started.

First Video from Today’s UAF/EDL Tower Hamlets Demos

Here is what seems to be the first Youtube video to emerge relating to today’s EDL protest, although alas it is of the SWP-led anti-EDL pro-Islamisation demonstration (more videos showing Tommy Robinson at Aldgate and EDL supporters at King's Cross can be viewed here). Note the preponderance of ethno-masochistic enablers of Islamisation amongst the UAF crowd. It is very sad to see any Englishman or woman led astray by the ideological error of Trotskyism and sundry other species of Marxism. If I were a Christian I might be tempted to say, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do”. However, as I am not, I won’t. Also take a good look at the posters that they carry, unwarrantedly attempting to bracket Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson with the mass murderer Anders Breivik. Watch and cringe.

EDL Tower Hamlets Demo Live Coverage

Updates about the above will be posted here today as information becomes available.

A little after midday, the Casuals United blog reported that 1,000 EDL had arrived at King’s Cross and a further 300 at Liverpool Street Station.  An earlier report stated that there were also 500 EDL supporters at pubs in Covent Garden. At this stage, it is unclear how many supporters UAF have managed to muster for their counter-demonstration, but last year’s UAF anti-EDL gathering in the borough managed to attract circa 5,000 local residents, the vast majority of them being Muslims. For some background on recent police perceptions of the EDL, including the views of the ‘National Association of Muslim Police’, see the article Celebrities note the Death of London and the EDL prepares for Tower Hamlets.

Unsurprisingly, the SWP reports that ‘Anti-racists are travelling from across Britain to join the protest today’, illustrating the mentally challenged universe inhabited by its supporters who purport to be unable to distinguish an ideology – Islam – from a race. Moreover, a speaker from the Islamic Forum of Europe addressed the assembled 'anti-fascists' with much approbation being expressed by the latter.Trade unionists should be aware that their subs have supported the attendance of delegations from Unison, the RMT, NASUWT, the UCU, the PCS, the GMB and Unite at the UAF counter-demonstration. One rabid SWP supporting student from Edinburgh University – Georgious Theodoridis – demonstrated the intolerance of so-called anti-fascism and its demand for complete ideological conformity to its dogma in the following words:

If you get the state to ban one demo they can ban them all. To beat fascists you need to take on the real problems in our society—they are not caused by immigration.

You have to fight the fascists in our communities, trade unions, workplaces and universities. You have to fight them in day to day life, not through a state ban.

Thus speaks an indoctrinated leftist droid. I don't know about you, but I've never seen one of these phantom fascists which he refers to. When he talks of banning demos, you know of course that he is aggrieved only with the fact that the SWP/UAF march was banned, for he does not think that the EDL has the right to demonstrate.

There have been some reports that the Communist-led RMT union - General Secretary Bob Crow - has closed King's Cross Station on spurious 'health and safety' grounds in an attempt to stop EDL supporters from reaching Tower Hamlets (video footage here). Later reports posted on the Vlad Tepes blog state that King's Cross Station reopened at around 2.20pm, after the EDL's static demonstration had begun. According to the Gates of Vienna blog, the EDL demo began at 2pm as planned, but it has had to take place just outside of Tower Hamlets because access to the borough had effectively been denied. However, this contradicts a later report from the Casuals United blog that '1200 marched to Tower Hamlets. No sign of any Muslims.' Both elements of the statement strike me as odd, given that marches have been banned and that no Muslims were in evidence given the demographic characteristics of the area. From the brief, and frankly bizarre video clip at the following link (Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson turned up dressed as a rabbi in a false beard), it seems that the main EDL static demonstration took place outside of Aldgate Station. He was arrested a little after 3.20pm for breaking his bail conditions.

The SWP report that the UAF counter-demonstrators have ignored Home Secretary Teresa May's banning order: 'Several hundred anti-racist protesters have marchedfrom their rally to Osborn St, at the bottom of Brick Lane.'  If this proves to be the case, why didn't the police prevent it, being aware of the violence perpetrated by UAF demonstrators at previous gatherings? 

The police blogger Inspector Gadget provides some interesting observations on events this afternoon:

There has also been some trouble in Commercial Street between local Bengali youths and the police. Things seemed to have quietened down now but there are groups of EDL and Bengali youth wandering around the area. Bottles are being hurled at police and press from EDL supporters. The kit is now going on.

But no doubt you will be told it all went off quietly.

However, since the above quote was posted from the Inspector Gadget blog, it and all attached comments appear to have been removed.

BBC coverage of the demonstrations has been poor, with the corporation once again describing the EDL as 'far right'. Video footage of the SWP-led UAF counterdemonstration can be viewed here. As for overall turnout today, the Casuals United blog makes a claim of 2,000 EDL supporters, who at 4.45pm were reported to be marching across Tower Bridge away from Tower Hamlets (video of EDL marching past the Tower of London here). The demonstration appears to have passed off relatively peacefully, with one report suggesting that as of 6.30pm there had been four arrests. As is customary in press releases relating to EDL demonstrations, the report omitted to mention whether these arrests were of EDL supporters or of counter-demonstrators.

EDL at King's Cross Station