Leicester’s Rival Marches: EDL and UAF

For all of the febrile and frenzied attention that the EDL attract from their opponents in UAF, Hope Not Hate and Searchlight, one could be mistaken for thinking that these three letters possess some kind of extraordinary magical power capable of inducing a state of mystical ecstasy amongst the ‘elect’ of the ‘anti-fascist’ sect. The sectarians apparently share a belief in a demoniacal presence, to which they give many names and perceive to be at work in many places; and in their conviction that this is so, they take to the streets and solicit public professions of faith in, and support for, their cause, the absence of which is taken to signify infection with, or sympathy for, the ‘devilry’ that they seek to drive out. As such, the self-styled ‘anti-fascist’ and ‘anti-racist’ movement is not so much founded upon reason, as upon a delusional fantasy in which a potential Nazi or Breivik lurks around every corner and behind every white smile.

So it is that yet again the highly predictable decision has been taken by UAF to congregate in Leicester this Saturday to chant their limited liturgy: “Whose streets? Our streets!" "Nazi scum, off our streets!” “Black and white, unite and fight!” etc, etc. It is boring and meaningless of course, serving no other purpose than to engender a sense of commonality amongst the self-righteous, revelling in their public display of politically correct piety and hatred for the anathematised within the EDL. How do the UAF organisers profess to see this though?

Leicester UAF has produced an article eliding a number of popular leftist pietistic clichés within its heading: “Holocaust – Never Again – Racist Murders – Never Again: Stephen Lawrence – Never Again – Anders Breivik – Never Again.” Quite why such a title heads an article about the EDL protesting against the racist attack on Rhea Page and other analogous cases is beyond me. It may come as a surprise to the UAF propagandist who penned the piece that both I and the vast bulk of EDL members and supporters would agree in full with the wishes expressed in the headline, for we roundly condemn genocide, murder and the pathological contempt for human life displayed by Anders Breivik. 

Their heading amply demonstrates that UAF supporters are not being rallied to protest against a real ‘threat’, but against a fantasy construct designed to generate stigma and hate. I am sure that the EDL would welcome those considering marching with UAF on Saturday, were they to march alongside the EDL against the neglect of cases of anti-White racism such as that displayed in the attack upon Rhea Page and her boyfriend and the recent murder of Danny O’Shea.

The paranoia of the Leicester UAF propagandists is displayed in the following two paragraphs extracted from their recent piece:

“The EDL are made up of members and ex-members of the Nazi BNP, Combat 18 and other racist and fascist hooligan groups. Their members have been convicted for racist assault and arson on Mosques and are frequently photographed making Nazi salutes on their demonstrations. They do not respect the democratic rights we have all fought to uphold. This is why we cannot allow them to March through the city centre of Leicester unopposed.

Last Friday 27th of January it was Holocaust Memorial Day – the anniversary of the day that the Nazis’ concentration camp at Auschwitz was liberated in 1945. We believe it is important to remember the reality of what it means when Fascists take power – we need to redouble our efforts to drive back the Fascists. In the Holocaust the Nazis murdered six million Jews, along with millions of Roma, trade unionists, socialists, gay men and lesbians and disabled people.”

These paragraphs can best be described as odd, deliberately misleading, insulting and ignorant: ignorant of what the EDL are; ignorant of the concerns that they articulate, and ignorant of any aspect of history that is not fixated upon Nazism. These people within UAF display a peculiar obsession with Nazi Germany, yet ignore other horrors of history such as Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism and of course the birth and spread of Islam. It is probable that other than a most cursory and superficial acquaintance with tendentious histories of slavery, imperialism and the Communist movement, these people remain predominantly ignorant of the riches and instructive experiences of history.

The UAF's demonstration in Leicester on Saturday 4 February is unnecessary and wrongheaded (wilfully so). The EDL demonstration on the other hand, is sadly necessary. If only it weren’t. 

 

Andrew Brons – a Man of Integrity

Quite justifiably, Andrew Brons yesterday responded to his critics in the form of a short piece sarcastically entitled ‘Sorry for Working so Hard; I’ll Try to Do Less Well’. Apparently, fulfilling his duties as an exemplary MEP has been adjudged by some rather less successful and carping figures who term themselves nationalists, to be a dereliction of his duty, and to contravene the cause of advancing British nationalism. This criticism is of course without merit. 

What is also notable, following the recent recommendation by Roger Bennett of the Brent Group that supporters of the BNP Ideas camp should move to the British Freedom Party, is that Brons is now being courted by both the BFP and, as of this evening, Paul Golding of Britain First. Both the BFP and Britain First are in my opinion being precipitate, but their eagerness to court Brons indicates the respect and influence that he rightly commands amongst British nationalist activists. Brons should hold firm to the course that he has set, and allow his plans to be revealed in the coming week. There exists, clearly, an apprehension within the leaderships of both the BFP and Britain First, that Brons may not endorse them, and will instead favour their primary rival, or something else altogether.

The scramble for BNP Ideas activists appears rather undignified. Golding’s piece is particularly ill humoured, and betrays the peculiar obsession of Britain First with what it terms “militant homosexuality” and “Zionism”. “Yes”, I hear you say by way of assent, “the British public has been crying out for these issues to be addressed! Oh, if only there were a party that made dealing with “militant homosexuality” and “Zionism” a central plank of its policy platform we’d go out and vote for it tomorrow!” There’d be a landslide victory, wouldn’t there?! Well, quantum physics does posit the existence of multiple universes, so I daresay that this tack might work in one of them, but it’s certainly not this one. Anyway, I shall serve up a few nuggets (more akin to the chicken than the golden variety) taken from Golding’s ‘message’ this evening:

“We now see the final machinations by the euro gravy-train blood-suckers that surround the well-meaning Andrew Brons, as they prepare him for their departure into the internet-only, miniature British Freedom Party (BFP).

Most have already stabbed Andrew in the back and departed, and some are getting ready to go.”

“Andrew is a good man who bravely took on the Griffin/Harrington gang but has now, sadly, lost the momentum that so many good people were relying on.

With the departure of the Brent Group into what can only be described as a homosexual-ridden, multicultural, Zionist micro-party, this tells us, and many other nationalists, including you, Mr Brons, what a lucky escape we all just had.

Imagine if your calls for unity had come to fruition when the recently departed political whores were still in with you Andrew?

We would all have been duped and open to contracting the disease of multicultural, “inclusive nationalism”, compounded with aserious dose of Zionism and militant homosexuality.”

Strangely, perhaps tellingly, when I last looked at Golding's article on the British Resistance site it had attracted 22 comments. Precisely what these comments were I couldn't say, for unlike those attached to all other articles, they could not be accessed. Something tells me that the feedback contained in these comments is thus in all likelihood not complimentary and was neither to his liking nor to that of the site's host 'Green Arrow' (Paul Morris). If you left a comment there that can no longer be accessed, please feel free to post it here, as I will not delete it [since this was written the comments section has once again become accessible and those that have been published are not altogether supportive of Golding, which is notable given that only selected comments are published. How many, if any, were rejected?] .

Whilst gratifying to see that Brons is honoured by Golding, it does strike me as rather rich that he describes the BFP as a “micro-party”. If that is the case, should Britain First and its offshoot the National People’s Party not be termed a “nano-party”, for just as three weeks ago, Britain First’s website remains ranked behind that of the BFP, with their positions in the UK today being 13,240^th and 10,914^th  respectively? Both have slipped in the rankings since 9^th January and, more importantly, still lag behind the popularity of BNP Ideas, which irrespective of a recent hiatus in posting comes in as the 9,084^th most popular site in the UK. Andrew Brons, despite not currently leading a party of his own, should thus rightly be adjudged to be more influential than either the BFP or Britain First. Brons is effectively in a position akin to that of kingmaker, which accounts for the attention that he is being paid by the two would-be successors to the BNP.

Turning to the BFP, Peter Stafford has of late been attempting to curry favour in the comments section of the BNP Ideas website, whereas George Whale has here donned a somewhat ‘regal’ (denoting royalty or a brand of cigarettes?) demeanour in his rubbishing of ‘Jurassic swamp’ nationalism as he believes is exemplified by the person of John Bean. Well, the Whale may well have swum out of the swamp, but the being that taps away at this keyboard lives firmly in the age of mammals, and has a singular aversion to both fully and semi-aquatic environments. I prefer to keep my feet upon terra firma. Who then, would the Jonah be upon the good ship of the BFP?  

 Jonah and the Whale (Gustave Dore) 

Whale’s decision to comment upon my piece on John Bean and the Brent Group and the forthcoming development to which it alludes, reveals a sense of unease and a desperate wish to get those at BNP Ideas to jump ship before the news is revealed. I will not pretend that I am privy to what this development will be, but I recommend that people be circumspect, and reserve judgement upon their most appropriate option for affiliation until at least next week. If something should not be forthcoming, then there are some of us who are already giving consideration to what will need to come next, for I can see - which means that any member of the public will be able to see – a number of significant flaws with the course being set by the BFP.

Now, given that nationalism is in a state of flux, we have an ideal opportunity to ensure that whatever objectives, strategy and tactics are forged, are best adapted to our current situation and what is to come in the next few years. This provides us with a chance to make a breakthrough. If we set off down the wrong track now, diverted from our central course by certain overlapping issues and interests, our cause is more or less finished. Contrary to the beliefs of a certain Dr Whale, this Dr knows that the solution lies not only outside of the Jurassic, but outside of the Cretaceous too.

Cycling enthusiasts ought to take rather more care when trying to keep their appointments.

Jesus and Mo: some of the best

According to the saying "A picture is worth a thousand words", but if you put a series of pictures together in the form of a cartoon and add a few words, such pictures can be worth volumes, as well as often being funnier too.  Humour possesses an added relish when the object of satire takes itself overly seriously and demands that it should be respected, so what could be a better topic for ridicule than the following? Enjoy Jesus and Mo! [Hat tip to Bare Naked Islam].

Nevskii Express Muslim Brotherhood Bombers Sentenced

On 27^th November 2009 a bomb attack took place on the Nevskii Express (pictured below) travelling from Moscow to St Petersburg, with a crank claiming that this had been carried out by a Russian cell of Combat 18 based in St Petersburg. This never rang true, and the main theory at the time of the explosion was that it was the act of Islamist terrorists, probably Chechens. Earlier this week, the culprits were finally sentenced for this act of terror, but rather than being Chechens, they were all Ingush males from the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia said to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood.  

 

Interfax reports that four of the men were sentenced to life imprisonment on the following counts: “the organisation of and participation in an illegal armed formation”; “banditry”; conducting a “terrorist act”; “murder”; “attempted murder”; the “illegal trafficking of weapons” and the “illegal preparation of weapons”. A further six were given 15-year custodial sentences. The attack that these men prepared and perpetrated claimed the lives of 27 passengers and wounded a further 132.

Although Ingushetia and Chechnya split from each other in the 1990s, both still technically remain in the Russian Federation and are hotbeds of Islamism. Russia has suffered from a series of serious Islamist terrorist attacks that have not received the attention that they often deserve in the Western media (e.g. Moscow Metro, March 2010; Kizlyar, March2010; Nazran, April 2010; Vladikavkaz, September 2010), and tensions with the Muslim peoples of the northern Caucasus remain high, as evidenced by a spate of clashes in the southern Russian city of Rostov-on-Don and its surrounding district. If it were not for the strategic importance of Chechnya occasioned by the fact that oil pipelines happen to cross its territory, it could well be to Russia’s benefit to let the ‘republic’ and the other Islamic peoples of the region – such as the Ingush – become independent.

Human Rights Watch: promoting Islamism and undermining Democracy

The very name of the organisation – ‘Human Rights Watch’ – conjures up a vision of some benign guardian keeping a watchful eye upon the (mis)conduct of governments and ensuring that gross violations of ‘human rights’ are brought to the attention of men and women of good intent around the globe. Who can argue against the desire to protect life and limb, freedom of conscience and equality before the law? These all strike me as eminently sensible; the prerequisite foundations for any just society. However, ‘Human Rights Watch’ has revealed itself to be something other than what I have described, and paradoxically, through a muddled combination of globalist universalism, abstract individualism and cultural relativism, has now found itself in a situation where it is actively facilitating the spread of an ideology and its bearers that do not recognise the concept of ‘human rights’.

Astonishingly, an AP report from 22 January entitled ‘HRW calls on West to accept Islamist rise to power’ states:

“The United States and other Western governments must accept the new reality that Islamists have emerged to fill the power vacuum in the Arab world after a wave of popular uprisings, Human Rights Watch said in its annual report Sunday.

The New York-based group also urged Islamist parties, which have emerged as the biggest winners in recent elections in Tunisia and Egypt and are expected to fare well in Libya, to respect the rights of women and religious minorities, saying they cannot "pick and choose" when it comes to human rights.

Islamist parties are "genuinely popular" in the Arab world, said HRW's executive director, Kenneth Roth, warning that "ignoring that popularity would violate democratic principles."

"Being a political Islamic government should not be a reason to turn a government into a pariah," Roth told reporters in Cairo, where the group released its annual report.”

For some reason, HRW staff appear unable to appreciate that Islamism is based upon an outlook entirely alien to their own which does not recognise the abstract human rights that they purport to espouse. This is what makes HRW’s comments regarding European countries all the more worrying:

“The group also claimed that even member states of the European Union have violated human rights through restrictive asylum and migration policies.”

Effectively, HRW is seeking to deny Europeans the right to national self-expression and self-determination, and would instead be content to see such a mass influx of Muslim immigrants that they would undermine the very foundations of human rights themselves across Europe, as well as national citizenship rights. HRW is deeply infected with the bacillus of cultural, ethnic and racial self-loathing characteristic of the dominant ideology within European countries and their daughter societies America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. So deep and entrenched is this self-loathing, that today HRW published an article by Benjamin Ward entitled ‘Europe’s Treatment of Minorities Endangers Our Core Values’, key extracts being reproduced below:

“EU governments proved reluctant to help refugees and migrants fleeing Libya, including people risking their lives at sea in rickety boats. European countries have been quick to resume migration cooperation with Libya, Egypt and Tunisia with the aim of speedily deporting migrants who reach Europe, including those originating from Sub-Saharan Africa. And the arrival of Tunisian migrants in Italy last year led to a row in which leading EU governments questioned aloud the value of free movement, a fundamental EU pillar.

When it comes to Europe’s domestic human rights record, the long-term trends are deeply worrying. As a new essay from Human Rights Watch explains, four trends stand out: the erosion of civil liberties in the fight against terrorism; the rise of populist extremist parties and their negative influence on mainstream politics; the declining effectiveness of traditional human rights institutions; and growing intolerance and abuse toward migrants and minorities. Taken together they amount to a crisis.”  

Thus, HRW has reached well beyond its original remit of documenting and campaigning against human rights abuses in totalitarian societies, and has instead moved into the realm of globalist political lobbying, effectively acting as a vigorous advocate of the ‘no borders’ movement. It calls for the undermining of democratic process and choice in European nations by denigrating the domestic desire for national security and solidarity through its use of demonising terminology such as “populist extremist parties.” If European nations are unable to protect their own citizens and their own cultures, then they will be swamped and destroyed by alien cultures and peoples not so reticent about using whatever means they deem necessary to impose their will and demographic stamp upon the territories that they occupy. The demographic danger that European nations face hails predominantly from Africa and Asia, and this immigrant horde carries with it an ideology that shows nothing but scorn for the values that HRW claims to hold dear: Islam. These demographic interlopers cynically employ the ideology of ‘human rights’ when it suits them, without believing in its content. So, why is it that the earnest types at HRW fail to understand this basic fact? Perhaps the following goes some way to explaining it.

One of the notable features of recent history is the manner in which concepts of human behaviour, rights and responsibilities born and elaborated within European societies and their settler colony offspring have come to be seen, particularly by the natives of these states, as universally valid and applicable. Initially, these ideas were spread to almost every corner of the globe as a consequence of the dominant geopolitical position of these powers, either through their direct dissemination by systems of colonial education, or via newly accessible texts printed in imperial languages such as English, French and Russian that were eagerly devoured by emergent colonial intellectual elites. Peoples who had previously lived their lives in accordance with non-occidental norms and values dictated by the specifics of their religious, caste or tribal affiliation, were thus exposed to radically different ways of conceptualising nature, society and the individual, as embodied in specifically Western ideologies such as Liberalism, Socialism and Marxism. Even in those non-Western states that avoided colonisation, the success and dynamism of occidental societies spurred a thirst for emulation, as best exemplified by the case of Japan.

The apogee of occidental power was brought to an end by the First World War which dented Western self-confidence and gave birth to a sense of profound doubt and pessimism with respect to the nature of Western Civilisation and its achievements. It, together with Japan’s defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, led to the emergence of a growing revolutionary confidence amongst colonial peoples, both in the form of anti-colonial nationalism and also revolutionary Marxism, with the two often fusing under Soviet and then later Chinese tutelage. The Second World War dealt a further blow to occidental confidence, with Europe subsequently divided into rival Capitalist and Communist camps headed respectively by the USA and USSR. It was the experience of the 1930s and WWII that enabled the predominantly Jewish émigrés of the Frankfurt School who had established themselves in American academe to propound and propagate their dogma of multiculturalism and ‘anti-racism’, which was later exported to Western Europe owing to the hegemonic position of the USA in that half of the continent. Decolonisation, ‘national liberation struggles’ and the New Left born in 1968 fused with US multiculturalism to create a new sphere of leftist identity politics, that whilst seeing itself as ‘radical’ and ‘oppositional’ at the time, has come to form the hegemonic discourse of Western nations today: multiculturalism, political correctness and cultural relativism. From this so-called movement of ‘liberation’ stem the social balkanisation, censorship, thoughtcrime and self-denigration and abasement before other cultures, most notably, before Islam, that characterise Western societies in the current period.

This effective collapse of self-belief within the West has led to the self-loathing mode of thought that characterises the perspective of Human Rights Watch, which whilst more than willing to condemn generous and tolerant Western societies as being ‘intolerant’ and a danger to liberty, is keen to also turn a blind eye to the inherent barbarity of doctrinaire Islam and Islamism. By doing so, HRW is effectively running the risk of calling for the burial of the West, and its replacement by unbending, intolerant and barbaric theocratic social norms and punishments. HRW thereby reveals itself to be a decadent organisation that actively undermines the ideals it was established to defend. Founded in 1978 as successor to Helsinki Watch, a body created in 1975 to monitor human rights abuses in the then Soviet bloc, it has in recent years received its primary funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation (formerly Institute). Wikipedia reports that Soros donated $100 million of the $128 million that it received in 2011. Soros of course has caused a great deal of human misery through his speculative activities and has ‘warned’ of the rise of nationalism in Europe. Might not his money have no small impact upon the focus and activity of Human Rights Watch, and its anti-democratic, anti-European and anti-nationalist agenda? [Hat tip to Cygnus for sending the link which suggested this piece].

John Bean and the Brent Group’s Endorsement of the British Freedom Party

The Brent Group, led by Roger Bennett, was the skeleton around which the concept of a ‘BNP Parallel Party Structure’ was taking shape, as Andrew Brons and the BNP Ideas group deliberated over how to find a way out of the impasse created by Nick Griffin’s corrupt stranglehold on the BNP. Ultimately, most supporters of the BNP Ideas faction and the Brent Group were of the opinion that a new nationalist party would be formed, but when Andrew Brons instead announced the formation of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism, this caused mixed reactions and exasperation on the part of many members who had wanted in effect a new ethnonationalist party. This week however, Roger Bennett decided to throw in his lot with one of the small nationalist parties seeking to mop up the activists and support base of the ailing BNP: the British Freedom Party. The following excerpt taken from the Brent Group’s site explains the reasoning underpinning his decision:

"We need a party for the 21st. century and not one rooted in the early 20th. century. A party promoting the principles in we believe, but in a moderate and intelligent manner. With leaders of integrity and no previous bad past history so easily used against a party by our enemies and hostile press. Leaders that can give intelligent and educated interviews, and will win media support.

The only option now is to combine with an existing party that has the policies, organisation and principles we can support. A party that is truly democratic, with officers elected and not appointed, a party run for the members in an open manner.  After closely reviewing all options, only one party fits our criterion, The British Freedom Party.

My proposal to you is to join and support the British Freedom Party."

This statement has caused some surprise, with a mixture of reactions being present in the comment thread to the article on the BNP Ideas site reporting this move. BNP Ideas itself has adopted a neutral tone, in line with the principles of the Centre for Democratic Nationalism which seeks to act as a unifying hub for nationalists in Britain:

“Speaking to BNP Ideas after his announcement yesterday, Mr Bennett said that his decision, announced in an email circular sent to thosewho had specifically joined the Brent Group (and not to those who registered with BNP Ideas through this site’s contact form) was a recommendation based on his personal decision and should not be ipso facto taken as official endorsement from BNP Ideas.”

How many supporters of the Brent Group will take Roger Bennett’s advice? It is clear that some certainly will follow him into the British Freedom Party, but a comment left by veteran British Nationalist John Bean struck me as very interesting, and potentially portending a significant announcement:

“It is a pity that the Brent Group could not have waited another two weeks before deciding to wind down the organisation. As I see it the problem with the miniature parties trawling for new members, including former BNP members, is that their policies are ultra-nationalist. Despite a few passing expressions of support to fellow nationalists on the Continent (certainly from British Freedom) they want no connections with the European mainland whether through trade agreements or military pacts to increase the effectiveness of our common defence.

My views have previously been aired on this site for replacing the EU with a European Confederation of sovereign states in order to guarantee our present major export markets, AND to tackle the biological threat of the eventual elimination of the heart of the white world. Any so-called nationalist party will not get my support on the latter unless it can say that it aims to halt all further Afro-Asian immigration. To talk of “strict controls” or “welcoming a few non-European members” is only playing for time and not solving the disaster that faces our grandchildren. Having read some of his blogs I suspect that Paul Weston is aware of the significance of this.”

It is the opening line of Bean’s comment that struck me: “It is a pity that the Brent Group could not have waited another two weeks before deciding to wind down the organisation.” Why, unless a significant announcement is to be made with respect to the organisation – or proposed organisation - of nationalist politics in Britain today, would he have written this? It suggests that whatever is to be revealed within the next fortnight will prove to be a good political fit with the principles and ideology underpinning the Brent Group; a better fit indeed, than the British Freedom Party.  

Bean’s views with respect to our European neighbours are, in my opinion, worthy of serious consideration, and represent a saner response to contemporary geopolitical realities than Atlanticism. To an extent, they overlap with Guillaume Faye’s Archeofuturist vision of a Euro-Siberian Confederation comprised of ethno-cultural units which in many instances – such as in the cases of Brittany and Padania – would be smaller than our existing nation-states. This model of ethno-cultural devolution within a wider confederation of sovereign states, collaborating in key areas of trade, defence and hi-tech manufacturing and research on behalf of the interests of the native peoples of Europe, possesses a certain appeal, particularly when considering the nature of our external threats, actual and potential. I support Bean’s reservations with respect to the British Freedom Party on this matter. 

John Bean: European Confederation of Sovereign States

Looking further out into cyberspace, peering into the reactions within the nationalist blogosphere that used to be united behind the BNP, responses to Bennett’s BFP endorsement have been mixed, ranging from the equivocal (Northants Patriot) to outright opposition (New Leadership). Other notable nationalist sites have so far failed to pass comment. These include: Sarah Maid of Albion; Wigan Patriot; Southwest Nationalists (however, the Southwest Nationalists blog does display banners promoting Britain First, the BNP and BNP Ideas) and Eddy Butler. Butler has of course thrown his weight fully behind the English Democrats, but his opinions on nationalist politics are often worth reading, and it strikes me as highly likely that he will write a piece on this move. As for the piece covering this issue on the Northants Patriot blog, the author made some salient points with respect to the BFP’s tie-up with the EDL:

“I am sure the BFP have the right intentions, my only doubt is with the links this party is said to have with the English Defence League. If these links are true, any trouble associated with the EDL, whether they are blameless or not, will be used to hit the fledgling BFP with. Personally, I will continue to reserve judgement on joining, but will continue to work with any party furthering the cause of both English and British Nationalism.”

Well, there are such links, and Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon does of course endorse the BFP, but the EDL rank and file are far from united behind Weston’s party, often voicing support for UKIP instead. This is despite the latter party’s unwillingness to recognise Islamisation as a problem, which is why Weston left UKIP in the first place. Although it may provide the BFP with a boost in the short term, it is true that the link between the two could backfire on the BFP in the long run should it begin to attract a couple of percentage points in the polls. UAF, Searchlight and Hope Not Hate are of course already honing their arguments against what they have termed the “fluffy fascists” of the BFP, and busy peddling the line that the EDL are the new 'blackshirts'. So, if you are a supporter of the Brent Group, what are your thoughts? Will you wait for a fortnight, or have you decided to join the British Freedom Party? Strangely, at the time of writing the British Freedom Party had not commented on this development.

Ingush-Russian Clash in Rostov-on-Don

The national question is a theme that is hotly debated in Russian politics, with proponents of ethnic and civic models battling it out. As in Western Europe however, it is the civic version that is dominant, and Russia possesses its very own variant of multiculturalism. What makes the national question such a live issue is the relative demographic decline of ethnic Russians which is paralleled by a surge in immigration from nearby Muslim states and higher birth rates amongst Muslim indigenous ethnic groups within Russia. Violent Islamism continues to bedevil the country and over the past decade the DPNI (Movement Against Illegal Immigration) has sprung up to address concerns about the mass influx of non-Russians. Presidential contender Vladimir Putin evidently thinks that votes are to be won by touching upon this theme, for he has just published his thoughts on the national question in Russia (see the forthcoming article ‘Russia and the National Question: Putin the Patriot?’).

The soft underbelly of the Russian state is the North Caucasian Federal District, of which the Muslim republics of Chechnya and Ingushetia form component parts. It is from this region that the bulk of Russia’s domestic Islamist threat originates. Abutting onto this is the Southern Federal District, of which Rostov-on-Don is the administrative centre. Last week Rostov bore witness to a mass brawl between local Russian students and ethnic Ingush (the latter being a Sunni Muslim ethnic group) that resulted in two individuals being taken to the local hospital to be treated for concussion. The fight was brought to an end when one of the as yet unidentified participants drew out an ‘Osa’ pistol and fired several shots into the air. According to Nezavisimaya gazeta, “the incident took place a week ago next to a dormitory building of the Don Technical University” and local officials have subsequently taken “measures to forestall the appearance of extremism and interethnic conflicts.”

According to Kavkazskii uzel, additional information suggests that “on one side were local residents aged 25 and 19, on the other, seven students from the technical university, having come from Ingushetia to study. Almost all of the students were of the same age: namely 19.” The fight is said to have been sparked by a slanging match that arose between the two.

The local authorities are concerned by this incident because it is not an isolated case. Kavkazskii uzel notes that there have been recent mass brawls in the city and elsewhere in the Rostov District, notably on 2 January when a 38-year-old died of a chest wound and three others were hospitalised; four were hospitalised with serious injuries following a violent ethnic clash in Rostov-on-Don’s Lenin Square in August last year; last July two dozen people were injured (nine hospitalised) in the hamlet of Mel’nikov in the inappropriately named Veselovskii (literally ‘cheerful’ or ‘merry’) region, and another fight between students broke out in the port city of Taganrog on 9 February 2011.

The wounding and subsequent death of Russian student Maksim Sychev by an Ingush student named Khazbulat Markhiev at the Rostov State Construction University at the end of November 2010 caused uproar in Rostov. On 12 December that year a protest was held that attracted some 2,500 participants bringing together “students, football fans, national-patriotic and other informal opposition bodies”. Markhiev was later charged with bringing about Sychev’s death through inflicting “traumatic brain injury” for which he received a three-year sentence.

Taking into consideration the aforementioned context, it can be no surprise that the atmosphere in Rostov must therefore be rather tense. The question that naturally poses itself is this: are these incidents unrelated, or are they symptomatic of something more worrying in the state of Russo-Ingush ethnic relations? 

Russians and Ingush Clash in Rostov-on-Don 

(picture courtesy of Russkii obozrevatel')

 

Incentivising Islam: the Folly of the British Penal System

Prisoners are by definition a highly disparate group of people united by one thing only: the fact that have broken the law and have been sentenced for this fact. One of the primary purposes of prison is of course to deny liberty to the inmates, for they, having broken their ‘contract’ with society, are being punished for this transgression. This is as it should be. The rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens in a free society should not therefore be accorded to prisoners. Their period of incarceration furnishes them with time to consider the reason(s) for their being there, and to reflect upon whether they should choose to reform their characters and conduct or otherwise. The prisoner must submit to the demands of the penal system, and not the penal system to the demands of the prisoner.

Ideally, the fundamental operational principles of prisons would function in accordance with the position outlined above, but the reality turns out to be rather different. Indeed, thanks to ‘diversity’ and ‘human rights’ [sic] legislation and the lobbying of certain aggressive activists from a particular religious background, our prison system today is offering positive incentives to inmates to convert to Islam. Our prison system is being subverted and transformed into an agent of Da’wah – Islamic proselytisation. “Nonsense!” I hear you cry. Really? Consider this: a headline in yesterday’s Daily Mail declared that “A third of inmates at Feltham youth jail are Muslims . . . and more convert to get better food.”

Of 686 prisoners, 229 are Muslims. The report states:

Sources claim that converts are attracted by the chance of better food and a more comfortable regime.

But there are also fears that some are being radicalised.

During Ramadan, Muslim prisoners are given food in separate hot and cold containers so they can eat what they choose at the end of their daylight fast.

A source revealed: ‘Over the last few years there has been a huge surge in those attending Muslim services.

‘The popularity of the faith has surprised people. We are seeing a large number of inmates converting to Islam.'

He added: ‘There is a difference between mainstream believers and extremists, but the fear is that some in the jail are being radicalised.

'Others convert for protection or to have what they believe is an easier lifestyle.’

Prison insiders say most non-Muslims are locked up during Friday prayers because so many guards are needed to monitor the lunchtime service.

The Ministry of Justice said: ‘The Prison Service is committed to ensuring the religious needs of prisoners of all faiths are met.’

No concessions should be given to Muslim prisoners. There should be no right to collective prayer; no imam on the prison payroll; no right to halal food; no right to the provision of separate meals. If they wish to fast during Ramadan, they can choose to eat the food provided at the appropriate times, or not to eat.

The fact that Islamists target non-Muslims for conversion in prison is well attested, as is the statistical overrepresentation of Muslims in not only prisons in Britain, but in other European countries that possess a Muslim population. This is indicative not of the fabricated and non-existent phenomenon of ‘institutional racism’, but of deep-rooted criminality amongst sections of the Muslim population, such as is manifested in systematic predatory paedophilia targeting English girls in many of our towns and cities. In 2008 it was estimated that 3.9% of the UK population was Muslim, but 12% of prisoners declared affiliation to that faith; in the same year, 20% of prisoners in the Netherlands were Muslim whilst Muslims made up 5.5% of the general population, and in Belgium 16% of prisoners were Muslim, although only 2% of Belgium’s population belonged to this faith group. In France in recent years, demographers estimate that 60-70% of the prison population is Muslim, whereas 7.6% of the French population in 2008 was thought to profess Islam. More information can be found at ‘Muslim Prison Populations in Europe’.

Quite clearly, there seems to be something specific to Islam that gives rise to criminality in European societies. Our prison system should not therefore be encouraging and facilitating the practice of this belief, but seeking to promote apostasy amongst Muslim inmates. If it does not do so, we will witness a further growth in criminality rooted in organised Islamic gangs and networks both within and without the prison walls; Islam will to all intents and purposes have been incentivised by the British penal system. This incentivisation must stop. 

Former Feltham Inmates 

 

Rally for Free Expression: One Law for All

The One Law for All (OLFA) campaign will be holding a rally for free expression in London on 11 February between 14:00 and 16:00. OLFA campaigns against the encroachment of religious laws, in particular the rapidly growing reach of Sharia within the UK, and for the observance of the principle of one secular law for all. This principle provides the necessary preconditions for freedom of thought and expression, but alas of course does not necessarily guarantee them (e.g. witness the many pieces of legislation regarding thoughtcrimes against ‘diversity’, etc).

The reason for calling this protest at this point in time is explained by its organisers Maryam Namazie and Anne Marie Walters as follows:

The call follows an increased number of attacks on free expression in the UK, including a 17 year old being forced to remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon or face expulsion from his Sixth Form College and demands by the UCL Union that the Atheist society remove a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page. It also follows threats of violence, police being called, and the cancellation of a meeting at Queen Mary College where One Law for All spokesperson Anne Marie Waters was to deliver a speech on Sharia. Saying ‘Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?’, an Islamist website called for the disruption of the meeting. Two days later at the same college, though, the Islamic Society held a meeting on traditional Islam with a speaker who has called for the death of apostates, those who mock Islam, and secularist Muslims.

Indeed, the threats made against Waters and those who attended the debate were truly chilling, and unlike much of the bluster associated with militant Islamists such as Anjem Choudary, the menace on this occasion was very specific as the following excerpt from a National Secular Society report shows:

Ms Waters was due to give a talk on behalf of the One Law for All campaign on 16 January but before it started, a man entered the lecture theatre, stood at the front with a camera and filmed the audience. He then said that he knew who everyone was, where they lived and if he heard anything negative about the Prophet, he would track them down.

The man also filmed students in the foyer and threatened to murder them and their families. On leaving the building, he joined a large group of men, apparently there to support him. Students were told by security to stay in the lecture theatre for their own safety.

The President of Queen Mary's Atheism, Secularism and Humanism Society, who organised the event said: "This event was supposed to be an opportunity for people of different religions and perspectives to debate, at a university that is supposed to be a beacon of free speech and debate.

What I would like to know is this: what have the police done since this incident to track down the man who made the threats and ascertain the identities of his supporters? Furthermore, is it not rather telling that there has not been a word of condemnation of this act from the so-called ‘anti-fascists’ of UAF, Searchlight and Hope Not Hate? All of them are in essence anti-English campaign organisations which push for restrictions upon freedom of thought, expression and political association, thus they are quite happy for Islamists to close down debate, threaten liberties and life and limb. Islamists and the authoritarian Left have much in common.

We must be eternally vigilant against those who would take it upon themselves to act as censor, and thereby to assume the role of arbiter over what may be expressed, and what may not. It was therefore of some surprise when the British Freedom Party recently declared its “20 Point Plan” which started well enough by stating that it wished to “Introduce a US style First Amendment guaranteeing Free Speech” but then went on to state in point number 15 that it would “Tighten regulations on the sexual/violent content of TV, films and games”. This does seem to be somewhat inconsistent. As Cygnus (a regular reader of this blog) noted, we already have a significant amount of legislation dealing with these matters, and it is the failure to observe the letter of the law when say selling violent computer games to children younger than the stipulated age, that causes problems. As for adults, they should be able to view, read and play what they wish.

There was an earlier Rally for Free Expression organised by Peter Risdon which was held in Trafalgar Square on 25 March 2006. This was poorly attended but attracted a large number of police with surveillance equipment. Everyone who participated on the day was filmed and photographed. Its detractors dubbed it ‘Islamophobic’, ‘far-right’ and ‘racist’: the standard stigmatising verbal repertoire of those unable to justify and defend their position through reason. How well attended will the OLFA equivalent be, and what will its opponents and the so-called anti-fascists say of it? Will it be opposed by militant Islamists as has happened in the past when a group of "Allahu-Akbar!" chanting protestors turned up marching with UAF placards in hand (video here)? Will the media give it any support? Unfortunately, I suspect that the NUJ will attempt to overlook this rather uncomfortable protest, for it highlights the ugly reality of one of the problems spawned by cultural relativist multiculturalism in the UK today. As such, it breaches one of the great official taboos of our current age.

“Big Issue! Cross my palm with silver, or my children will pick your pockets!”

"Here to do the jobs that British people won't do" are they? Tres amusant! It would now seem that they are also “here to sell the Big Issues that British homeless people won’t sell”, or so the owners of the magazine would have you believe. Astonishingly, it was revealed on Radio 4 earlier today that in some areas of the country 80% of Big Issue vendors are Roma immigrants from Romania or Bulgaria who, moreover, use this status as a scam to claim a number of benefits including housing benefit. Now, whereas I can understand that Romanians and Bulgarians must be delighted to be rid of them, I’m really not sure what benefit we gain from them being here. Well, I suppose that their presence adds to the ‘diversity’ of our grumbles and grievances, but other than that . . .

A spokeswoman for The Big Issue has stated:

"Anyone who is self employed or working is entitled to certain benefits, In the case of A2 nationals this is housing benefit and working family tax credits. Selling The Big Issue in the North is genuine self employment and we would defend anyone’s right to claim a benefit if they are legally entitled to it regardless of their race.

When Roma come to The Big Issue in the North they have few ways of earning an income and therefore securing and maintaining a roof over their and their families heads.

As a country we believe it is unacceptable for families to live in poverty – our benefits system supports this – and this support must reach every person and family which we allow to live and work here regardless of race."

Owing to indoctrination the poor woman is unable to disentangle the concepts of nationality, citizenship rights and obligations and racial ‘discrimination’. Don’t buy The Big Issue from Roma; we, sadly, have enough homeless people of our own.

Although the BBC loves to try and put an anti-European spin (i.e. anti-European as in anti-indigenous European not anti-EU) on stories connected to mass immigration, today it couldn’t quite writhe out of the fact that of the 371,000 current benefit claimants of foreign origin resident in the UK, the majority of them hailed from such countries as Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Iran and India. Indeed, owing to this fact it was left to the Daily Telegraph to reveal their countries of origin, as for some reason the BBC came over all coy about discussing this matter: “258,000 were from outside the European Economic Area.” One suspects that given these countries of origin a goodly proportion of these claimants could well be Muslim ‘single’ mothers i.e. wife number two, three or four of bigamist Muslim males. They form a wonderfully ‘valuable’ complement to our long-term Roma visitors, little Pakistans and Nigerias etc that have sprouted across England in recent decades.

In practical terms, the Conservative Party will do nothing about mass immigration because in reality it likes it; its upper echelons actually couldn’t give a damn about the origins of those who live in the UK providing that they’re a productive little work unit whose labour can be harnessed by unscrupulous companies unwilling to pay a living wage. The immigrant labour that such companies employ is not so much here to “do the jobs that British people will not do” as to “do the jobs for which unscrupulous employers are unwilling to pay a living wage.” Yes, many immigrants from Poland, Lithuania and other post-Communist European countries are highly educated, work hard, are motivated and willing to work long hours for little money (Roma excepted from all of these observations of course), but the influx of this labour has had an overall effect of driving down wages to such an extent that nobody can hope to support a family on them, especially when taking into account the current state of the housing market and rental sector.

Young Poles and Lithuanians without family responsibilities may be willing to rough it for a few years, even going so far as to share rooms and a bed, but that is no way for anyone to live in the long term. Blame the globalist politicians and businesses and not our Polish cousins for this state of affairs. Moreover, although the EU has effectively made our borders thoroughly porous, it is predominantly non-European immigrants who create problems for our society, and most of those problems reported by the media as connected to ‘eastern European immigrants’ are actually connected to Roma. NUJ guidelines on race and religion however, cause reporting to be systematically distorted and this fact to be omitted.

All in all, what new does this story about 371,000 foreign-born benefits claimants tell us? After all, it is just one in a seemingly endless stream of stories all reinforcing the message regarding the ongoing dispossession of the native British and English. The story duly ran in The Telegraph and The Guardian with predictable emphases, with the latter of course claiming that this was really rather a small number of people and that all immigrants are lovely, vibrant and enriching. Thus ends another day in the asylum that is the contemporary United Kingdom. What difference will today's 'revelation' make? Not much. A couple of opportunistic Tories will make some populist noises in an effort to curry favour with voters disgruntled with the open-door mass immigration policy, but they will possess neither the will nor the power to do anything about it. Voters will thus be duped and continue to vote for a party that in reality has no intention of changing policy in this area.

Lucky Charm Anyone?

MPACUK: Not keen on the EDL

Hardly a surprise, given that the stated mission of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee is to increase the power, influence and voice of the Ummah in the UK. Why however, they should not understand that a people in their own homeland – the English in England – should wish to resist Islamisation, is a question that should perhaps be answered by a psychiatrist, for it is not a logical position. Islam is not part of English identity and is incompatible with it, unlike for example Druidry, Wicca, agnosticism, atheism and Christianity. It is so incompatible, that any native who converts effectively renounces their ethnicity and declares themselves in opposition to the interests of their kith and kin. Thankfully, some who convert are bound to later realise the error of their ways and see their digression as either an aspect of youthful folly or as behaviour characteristic of a vulnerable interlude in their lives when they lost their sense of self-respect. 

Anyway, returning to MPACUK: what has been discomfiting its supporters of late? On their site I stumbled upon the following extracts taken from a piece entitled ‘Silence Isn’t Golden’ (I wonder if they think that ‘The Tremeloes’ are haram?):

In the latest news, the so-called English Defence League has set its eyes on areas which it has previously not marched at, such as Walsall and Bristol. To add insult to injury, they now have a formal political voice, via an agreement with the British Freedom Party. The BFP is also Islamophobic and the resources on their site point to the usual Islamophobic propaganda, as used and encouraged by terrorist Anders Breivik and their ilk.

It is pathetic that the most of our mosques ever seem to do is to tell people to stay in their homes and to not go out onto the streets. Furthermore, they tell the Muslims that to engage with the EDL thugs is mindless and pathetic. However, what many of them fail to realise is that when we go inside our homes, they will come knocking on our homes and destroy them. They have absolutely no dignity for any buildings in which Muslims are occupants as demonstrated by their recent march outside East London Mosque. 

I too find it an ‘insult’ that marches by the EDL are nowadays required to highlight Islamisation in Walsall and Bristol, for it is depressing that Islam has put down roots in these corners of England. Bristol apparently now has a sizable Somali colony. What benefits could possibly accrue from poor old Bristol acquiring a population of some 15,000 Somalis? Narcotics abusers who are keen on khat might find their presence a welcome addition, but who else I ask, other than anti-White Anglophobes? 

The BFP, particularly of late, may have adopted a somewhat Neocon tone, but it is rather hysterical or cynical (perhaps both) for MPACUK to seek to associate it with the name of Breivik. If the party was of the same ilk as Breivik after all, I would be extremely worried, for Breivik chose to massacre not Muslims, but native Norwegians.

It is telling that the author of this particular MPACUK article thinks that some mosque leaderships are “pathetic” for telling “people to stay in their homes and to not go out onto the streets.” This suggests that this individual has been picking up bad political habits from anti-English campaign group UAF and their SWP controllers, such as making slanderous allegations about the violent intent of EDL protestors. The writer has evidently been spooked by SWP propaganda, which serves to illustrate the highly destabilising and dangerous role that the Trotskyist Left plays in Britain today. It seems eminently sensible to me that the mosque elders he has chosen to chastise recommend that demonstrations should not be met with counterdemonstrations, for such occasions are bound to become overheated, particularly when the agents provocateurs of the SWP are present. The latter lust for violence, and clearly and willingly incite it.

Laughably, multiculturalist convert Boris Johnson is described as “Islamophobic”, but the author concludes their fearful piece in calling for Muslims to vote for Ken Livingstone in the next London mayoral elections. Well, at least on this count the author is correct: Ken will be a compliant dhimmi.

Ultimately, this MPACUK piece, as well as the existence of MPACUK itself, reminds us that we do have a problem with imperialist Islam in our country today. However, tempting as it may be, it would be myopic and not overly productive for a political party to become overly fixated upon attacking this manifestation of our multiculturalist malaise. The growth of Islamic militancy and of the population that gives it succour is a symptom of the globalist outlook of our political class and the associated policies that have been imposed upon us. The issue of Islamisation could be dealt with readily and peacefully enough should the political will be present. Thus it falls to us to discredit and remove the ideology of globalism, replacing it with a democratic nationalism in which the economy is made to serve our people, and not our people an unaccountable global market ruled over by transnational financiers. 

Not an organisation that I would care to endorse

Bradford: 54-year-old Man Attacked

At times, driving in Bradford can jangle the nerves. To put it politely, irregular driving is not overly unusual, and often downright dangerous in the UK’s capital of uninsured drivers. Thankfully however, I have not experienced the sort of incident that left an unfortunate victim of an unprovoked and vicious attack with a serious wound to his face. The assault took place on Tuesday 10 January at about 4.30pm on Gaynor Street. The 54-year-old motorist had been cut up by a black Seat Leon and forced to take evasive action. Naturally, the man was angry and pulled up, as did the other driver, said to be an “Asian man, in his early to mid twenties, around 5ft7ins, . . . wearing a grey cardigan.” After a verbal exchange the latter then hit the victim “in the face with a heavy object as he walked back to his car.”

This type of extreme and unwarranted violence has unfortunately occurred in the city before, and on this occasion the victim received 20 stitches in his face. The identity of the victim has not been revealed. West Yorkshire Police are appealing for potential witnesses stating:

“If you . . . can help us in our investigations to trace the man responsible for this assault, please contact the non emergency number,101, or Crimestoppers, in confidence, on 0800 555111.”

Good luck to them in their search. Let’s hope that this thug is apprehended soon before he has the chance to unleash this sort of violence against anyone else. 

CCTV Still of Suspect's Car

Anti-English Demonstration plugged by Leicester Mercury

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

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

The Daily Mail, unsurprisingly, made a huge noise about this case and its injustice. One would therefore think, looking at things logically, that the Daily Mail and other papers would be keen to back a protest against the judiciary’s wilful discounting of a racial motive in this instance. Why wouldn’t they be keen to champion a popular, grassroots democratic expression of discontent on this score? There could be no grounds, surely, for the Mail and the rest of the press ostensibly enraged by the Page case, not to back such a demonstration? Well, the Daily Mail has to date (correct me if I’m wrong) remained mute on the EDL’s forthcoming demo, whereas the Leicester Mercury has chosen to cover it. Is the Leicester Mercury sympathetic? Hardly.

• Headline number one from today’s Leicester Mercury: ‘Street attack used as reason for EDL demo in Leicester.’

• Headline number two from today’s Leicester Mercury: ‘Anti-facism group bids to counter proposed EDL march in Leicester.’

Do you notice anything telling about the manner in which the two stories have been prefaced? What of that first phrase – “used as a reason for EDL demo”. What does the paper mean “used as a reason”? This phrasing seems to imply that the Rhea Page case is simply being used as a pretext to demonstrate in Leicester rather than being the real reason for the demonstration. Journalists are generally assiduous in choosing the words that they employ in headlines, so whoever wrote headline number one would have carefully structured it in such a way as to generate a particular intended impact and insinuation in the minds of readers. Whilst not being supportive, the headline also failed to be neutral: it was hostile to the EDL and their cause on this occasion.

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

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

Unlike the idiotic and unnecessarily aggressive stance of UAF, the Leicester Mercury mentions the rather more level-headed reaction of the Leicestershire Federation of Muslim Organisations which the paper states:

“is advising people not to participate in counter demonstrations or to attempt to tackle the EDL.

Its spokesman, Suleman Nagdi, said: "Our message will be the same as last time. We are urging people, particularly the young, to refrain from going into the city centre to oppose the English Defence League out of some misguided idea that they are protecting their city.

"We are best to leave everything to the experts – in this case the police.””

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