A little over a week ago a story appeared courtesy of Reuters in which journalist Michael Holden claimed that the EDL was going “to form [a] “Freedom Party””. This claim was made upon the basis of a couple of quotes from Stephen Lennon:
Stephen Lennon, head of the English Defence League (EDL), said the three-year-old grassroots group wanted to move on from holding street demonstrations to contesting elections.
"The British political anti-Islamist party will be launched in May at our Luton demonstration," Lennon told Reuters, saying the new body would be called the Freedom Party.
"At the Luton demonstration, the whole country will hear an anti-Islamist political party that gives everyone an option in a non-racist way - the opposite to the British National Party."
It would seem that either Holden misheard what Lennon said, or that Lennon accidentally omitted the first part of the party’s full name which, given his hitherto stated support, can only be assumed to be the British Freedom Party. There is, or more accurately was, a UK political party named The Freedom Party (its website can be viewed here), but it is now essentially defunct although still technically under the chairmanship of Adrian Davies. So, the question that naturally poses itself is this: is Lennon really proposing to launch another party named “The Freedom Party”, or is he choosing the occasion of this May’s EDL Luton demo for what will be the third attempted launch of the British Freedom Party (BFP)?
The second option would seem to be the most logical one, but then again, not as logical as it ought to be. After all, the local elections are on Thursday 3 May, but the EDL’s Luton demo is on Saturday 5 May. Why choose to launch a party two days after the elections, particularly if the launch in question is actually a relaunch of the BFP? The BFP has previously declared its intention to field candidates in May, but to date, no concrete announcements seem to have appeared in connection with such plans. Perhaps a decision, for whatever reason, has been taken to delay its electoral baptism? Whatever the fact of the matter, this launch or relaunch is being poorly managed and communicated owing to the lack of clarity surrounding the whole affair.
Yesterday also witnessed Stephen Lennon/Tommy Robinson appear on the BBC Sunday morning television programme ‘The Big Questions’ following his trip to Aarhus in Denmark the preceding day for a European Counter-jihad gathering. Although this was the first time that he had appeared on ‘The Big Questions’, this was not the first occasion that Islam featured in the programme, for the fact is that it seems to play a disproportionate role in almost every episode that is aired. This perhaps should not come as a surprise given that Aaqil Ahmed was appointed as the BBC’s Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion and Ethics in 2009. His appointment has served to embed a pre-existent pro-Islam bias at the BBC, which also seems to have spilled over into its ‘Thought for the Day’ slot on Radio 4’s Today Programme, where once again Islamic voices are given a disproportionately large amount of airtime, whereas neo-pagans, Wiccans, UFO worshippers and voodoo practitioners seem to be left out of the equation. Come on now BBC, when are you going to redress your innate monotheistic bias! So much for ‘diversity’, eh?
Returning to yesterday’s rather more mundane and predictable bear-baiting session on ‘The Big Questions’, the BBC did of course deploy its normal tactic of packing its panel and audience full of pro-Muslim voices, leaving Lennon to defend himself from a far from impartial Nicky Campbell. The latter sneeringly inferred that Lennon dwelt in an alternative reality, responding to his comment that many middle class academics, such as Matthew Goodwin (also on the panel insinuating that Lennon was a crypto-Nazi), were out of touch with ordinary people’s life experience and concerns with the question: “Are they out of touch with what he perceives to be his reality?”
Although the programme purports to present a debate, its real function is to draw the audience towards a predetermined conclusion agreed in advance by its producers, and brought about through their careful selection and weighting of the audience. The end result is to produce a narrow and dogmatic BBC narrative that dehumanises anyone who objects to the ill effects of multiculturalism through making nasty and baseless assertions about their characters, and insinuating that anything other than a thoroughgoing endorsement of its position inexorably paves the way for ethnic cleansing and gas chambers. Yesterday’s episode, as can be seen from the video excerpt below, conformed precisely to this tediously predictable and bogus narrative.
To go the political party route would be difficult given that the ‘democratic system’ is so discredited and held in contempt by so many people. As much as I would like to see a modern nationalist party go for it by traditional methods the odds of any meaningful success is to limited. Street activity is very attractive given the success of EDL. Many other groups campaign in this way to raise the profile of their cause and bypass the bias BBC. Farthers For Justice and Greenpeace for example. However this would require high levels of activity by activists, continual recruitment and campaigning in every city centre similar to the left groups. All this would require long term dedication and commitment to reach out to a wider audience. The intensity of campaigning would be have to be high, as high as our opponents before we could start to undermine them and gain a sizable base of support to carry the cause of English culture and freedom forwardReplyDelete
I absolutely agree with you MFB. The EDL should stick with being a pressure group, and let their members support any emergent political party that they think addresses the issues that concern them as part of a much broader policy mix. It seems highly likely that Lennon will announce his backing of the BFP, but their choice of running on such a narrow anti-Islamisation ticket is a big mistake. However, as you will have seen from my recent series of articles, serious consideration is being given to the creation of a new, balanced, credible and moderate nationalist party. Work is continuing and an announcement of one sort or another will be made before summer.Delete
It depends on the political model Tommy Robinson and his backers are using. In some European countries nationalist parties have a street ‘army’ in addition to their political wing. I believe that this would be essential in England as it would ensure that opponents were not able to threaten and intimidate party supporters on the streets. A sizable disciplined group would also act as a focus and presence that would be appealing to many English men and women who have seen their country degenerate and their rights of expression and opinion removed from them.ReplyDelete
linking to the BFP is, in my view, a mistake and a bit of a cop-out.ReplyDelete
politicians only act if there is a): a threat to their income, b): if there is a threat to their income and c): if there is another way to get money.
Politicians only act if their sinecures are under threat. At this moment, there is no such threat to the very comfortable arrangement of LibLabCon coalition, with one party acting as an opposition. This arrangement is perfect, as it neutralises any chance of the formation of an opposition party ever forming.ReplyDelete
"Work is continuing and an announcement of one sort or another will be made before summer."
Don't keep us in suspense, tell us more!
All in good time.Delete
"All in good time."ReplyDelete
On another note have a look at Peter Hitchen's blog. To succeed I think we need some heavy hitters from the media world on side. Look at the comments.
There are some interesting comments there regarding his readership's desire for a new political alternative, and in the longer term of course, "heavy hitters" would be useful assets. However, it will not be until such a party is established and has revealed itself to be credible that such figures will come onboard. As for the state of play regarding the party proposal, a little more has been revealed in today's posting: http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/mayoral-elections-may-2012.htmlDelete
Great article. Your last comment about the producers guiding the audience to a predetermined conclusion was absolutely spot on. This can be said for many of the BBC's programmes. One you notice it you can actually see it being systematically put into action. Keep up the good commentary.ReplyDelete
You're right: the BBC's programming is utterly transparent with respect to its ideological agenda. Once you've identified the pattern for the first time, it is glaringly obvious on each subsequent occasion. Have you noticed how people you know have over the years unconsciously started to repeat the mantras instilled by the dripfeed of the BBC?Delete