EDL Bristol Demo 14 July 2012: the Background

Bristol, to the best of my knowledge, has not previously hosted an EDL demonstration. In years gone by, the idea that Bristol would come to host a large Muslim population was unthinkable, but today that situation has sadly changed. In Totterdown a mosque has appeared, its minaret dominating the local skyline like a missile aimed at the heart of the city. The largest resident Muslim population is Somali. Estimates that have frequently appeared in the media claim that the Somalis could number some 30,000, whereas a Bristol City Council document published in November 2010 was of the opinion that the range was more likely to be between 6,600 and 10,000. Whichever figure is selected, it is too high a number. What benefit accrues from their presence in Bristol? Why are they there, rather than in Somalia? If current trends continue, the Somali share of the population will grow rapidly, for in 2009 it was reported that 3.8% of Bristol schoolchildren were Somali, or one out of every 25. In 2001, the equivalent figure was only one in every 500. This growth has been fed both by immigration and high Somali fertility.

Totterdown Mosque (courtesy of Nicksarebi)

It comes as a surprise that there is a Council of Bristol Mosques, to which five mosques are affiliated, which nonetheless seems rather modest given estimated Muslim numbers. The first data from the 2011 Census will not be published until 16 July, but strangely, this will not contain any information on religion or ethnicity. It is therefore difficult to provide an accurate estimate of the size of Bristol's resident Muslim population, but one site propagandising Islam with the assistance of the BBC, using public funds provided by the local authority and Government Office South West, claims that there are 35,000 Muslims in the city. For those of us who knew Bristol 20 or 30 years ago, the emergence of such a population is staggering, as it has seemingly sprung out of nowhere.

What is the protest about?

Whereas elsewhere the EDL has generally used specific events that have occurred within a given locality as grounds for a demonstration, this does not seem to be the case in Bristol. The EDL explain their decision to hold a protest in the city on 14 July 2012 as follows:

The EDL are going to Bristol.  We are going to Bristol because we wish to draw public attention to Islamic grooming, the refusal of Muslims to integrate into British society and the increasing attacks by Muslims on non-Muslim Britons.

We are coming to Bristol to raise awareness of these problems and to call for a unified country under one democratic government, one law and one society grounded in British culture and traditions.

We want to call attention to the creeping Islamisation of Britain, with the increased use of halal meat whether non-Muslims want it or not.

We want to make people aware that our way of life and our culture are under threat from people who don’t care for our culture, country or humanity. They don’t care for our religions, politics, way of life, culture or traditions. They want to recreate 7th Century Arabia in Britain and they will lie, subvert and even kill to do it.

Given the experience of many other English towns and cities, as well as the general process of demographic Islamisation unfolding across the country, drawing attention to what has happened elsewhere and this general phenomenon could be adjudged to be worthwhile. However, it would perhaps be more effective were the EDL to highlight the deficits of multiculturalism and immigration policy, for without multiculturalist policies combined with mass immigration there would be no problem with Islamisation in this country, because the conditions that allow it would be removed at a stroke. Certainly, Stephen Lennon’s own statements regarding multiculturalism have been unclear, for on a number of occasions he has described the EDL as “multicultural”, whilst at other times criticising “multiculturalism”. It seems that he sometimes conflates “multiculturalism” and “multiracialism”, for the EDL is certainly multiracial, although predominantly English. The two are related, yet distinct.

The EDL's Opponents in Bristol

Although the EDL gives expression to many of the general public’s officially repressed suspicions and concerns relating to Islamic issues in England today, the EDL has no friends in high places, and has to confront three primary sources of opposition emanating from: 1) mainstream politicians and the mass media; 2) the self-styled ‘anti-fascist’ movement encompassing the trades unions and a range of far-left fringe groups and campaigns: UAF, Hope Not Hate, Searchlight, Love Music Hate Racism, various ‘unity’ front groups for the SWP and sundry independent anarchist groups; 3) Islamists and the wider Muslim population. All three forms of opposition intersect, with each attempting to make parasitic political capital out of the EDL. None of the EDL’s opponents are interested in portraying what the EDL really is, and the ‘anti-fascist’ propagandists of the second group enjoy the uncritical attention of the media. All however are united in their mutually profitable desire to manufacture the sense of a ‘far-right’ threat, whilst ignoring and facilitating the spread of the real ultra-reactionary ‘far-right’ in the form of Islamism.

Returning to the specifics of the Bristol demo on 14 July, the opposition from the first group enumerated has already been not-so-subtly voiced by the BBC, which stated in a story run on 14 June:

A security operation costing up to £1m and involving 700 police officers is being organised ahead of an English Defence League (EDL) march in Bristol.

Why did it open this story referring to the cost of the demo? How many BBC reports about forthcoming demonstrations, involving trades unions for example, are prefaced with such information, particularly citing such large figures? Although the article makes reference to the counterdemonstrators who oppose the EDL, it does not make clear that police concerns over public disorder arise largely from likely attempts by the Trotskyist SWP and anarchist-related self-styled ‘antifascist’ groups to provoke a violent clash with the EDL. Why did it choose to omit this information? Of course, there have been violent incidents at previous EDL demonstrations involving their supporters, and these cannot be justified, but a far larger number of their opponents have been arrested for public disorder and assault. Although the BBC did on this occasion refrain from describing the EDL as ‘far-right’ (a very rare honour for the broadcaster to withhold this slur), its reporting of the forthcoming march has in no way been balanced.

However, in the video below taken from an episode of the BBC’s Sunday Politics West, the EDL is repeatedly described as ‘far-right’, although the additional policing costs are cited as £500,000 rather than the £1 million stated on the website.

The opposition of the second group, which can be subsumed under the heading of ‘antifascists’, has manifested itself in a number of ways. An online petition has been set up, calling for the EDL demo to be banned. As of the evening of 25 June, this had attracted 1,970 signatures. The SWP-dominated UAF has also set up a front campaign named We are Bristol which is supported by leading members of a number of trades unions including: the CWU, FBU, NUJ, NUT, PCS, RMT and Unison. Other supporting bodies include the Bristol Labour Party; Bristol Anarchist Federation, Bristol Antifascists and Bristol Queercafe. Representatives from this SWP front group met on 11 June to discuss tactics for opposing the EDL’s demonstration. In support of this, they have produced various pieces of inflammatory campaign literature that I have reproduced below to give the reader a flavour of the far-from-peaceful mindset of these so-called ‘antifascists’.

The first below displays a very ugly and angry figure wielding a baton of some sort, smashing a swastika which presumably is supposed to represent the EDL. Hardly, you would think, an image produced to encourage peaceful counter-protest. The second image once again employs the hackneyed and inappropriate image of a swastika, this time being smashed by a rather beefy fist. Peaceful? If you believe that black is white and that white is black then I suppose you could construe it as ‘peaceful’, yes. Unintentionally amusing? Well, perhaps, given that it states “This is a no go area for all fascists, racists, sexists and homophobes”. In that case, why do they wish to demonstrate against the EDL? Surely their statement is far more applicable to Islamists? Still, there’s no reasoning to be had with these antifa types. The last two images below are of an antifa leaflet produced in the city. Although not as crude in style as the first two, they contain misinformation and the absurd insinuation that the EDL is some sort of “street army” being used by big business to distract the public’s attention from the evils of the capitalist crash. Utterly fantastical, there is about as much substance to these antifa allegations as there is to David Icke’s humanoid lizard conspiracy theory. 

UPDATE 9 July: The SWP front group 'We are Bristol' has been very successful in spreading its message, as although the city's council leader - Simon Cook - has declined to participate in the anti-EDL demonstration, he has stated: "We have made absolutely clear that we do not agree with their extremist views and do not want them in Bristol." However, unlike the SWP and UAF he added: "They are not a proscribed organisation and have a right to march." The 'This is Bristol' website which ran the story once again quoted the alleged £500,000 price tag for policing the EDL demo. Cook's even-handed position has upset both Islamophobia Watch and MPACUK.

Bristol's Antifa Propaganda Gallery

Tommy Robinson to appear on Jeremy Kyle?

An anti-British campaign blog has today claimed that Tommy Robinson/Stephen Lennon will shortly be appearing on the Jeremy Kyle show together with the Chairman of the British Freedom Party Paul Weston. Is this true? It may be a popular show (I must confess to never having watched it), but is this really the right forum for people who wish to elicit support from the general public? Does this not run the risk of seriously backfiring, with these two participants, given the type of people normally said to feature in the programme, coming to be perceived as just another addition to Kyle's dysfunctional circus sideshow?

Rhetorical Question: Is Jeremy Kyle patronising or smug?

Russia Today has hitherto been a rather more reliable news source with respect to its treatment of Islamism and Islamisation in Europe, but in the video below it would seem that it has been infected by the Breivik meme being vigorously peddled by none other than the anti-British 'Hope not Hate' campaign. As someone elsewhere has commented, blaming the EDL for Breivik as 'Hope not Hate' and this report do is akin to blaming The Beatles for Charles Manson (although of course it has to be said that The Beatles produced rather better music than the EDL).

'Hope Not Hate': Undermining Democracy

Edwin Greenwood, writer of the brilliantly humorous Dogwash blog, has today written a piece entitled ‘Off the books’ in which he draws attention to the dubious nature of two ‘Campaigns Officers’ posts advertised by the Hope Not Hate organisation on the House of Commons website w4mp. The overview appended to the post descriptions in the advertisement are very telling, and point to the fundamentally anti-democratic nature of Hope Not Hate:

“HOPE not hate is one of the largest and most successful political action groups in the country. Working with local community groups across the country we have managed to undermine the BNP both at the ballot box and in the wider community. Our focus for 2012 is to ensure that the BNP, and any other far right party, fail to get anyone elected onto the London Assembly and that they are defeated in the councils seats they are defending around the country.

The Campaign Officers, who will be part of the campaigns team, will help deliver grassroots anti-fascistcampaigns in our target areas. We are recruiting two posts, one to focus on theLondon elections and the second to focus on target areas for the local elections. Both roles will necessitate travel.”

This prompts Edwin Greenwood to comment:

“Whatever your view of the BNP itself, either now or at the height of its brief period of ascendancy a couple of years ago, there is something very dubious about all of this. The funding and conduct of election campaigns is subject to close supervision by the Electoral Commission. Or at least that is what applies to the candidates and their parties. And yet here is an organization spending significant sums and deploying significant resources in opposing a specific, individual party. And it does so entirely unaccountably and without limit.”

His analysis and misgivings are spot on. Read the article in full here. It seems to me that the anti-democratic intent and mode of operations of this organisation and kindred campaigns such as UAF and Searchlight merit a major exposé. Would this not serve as an excellent focus for a Channel 4 Dispatches investigation?

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.

Anti-Nationalist Website Popularity: Who’s scraping the Bottom of the Barrel?

Having taken a look at the relative popularity of British and English nationalist websites, it is time to peer into a realm which we do not find agreeable, for there much frothing and fury is to be found: the world of anti-English and anti-British politics. Given the mainstream disdain for nationalism I will not be looking at websites belonging to the BBC, The Guardian or the Labour Party for example, for despite being persistently anti-British (in particular anti-English) the primary reason for their existence is not stated to be the ‘struggle’ against nationalism. Instead, this piece looks at sites belonging to self-styled ‘anti-fascist’ organisations/campaigns, as well as Muslim political groups and the parties of the Trotskyist Left. For the sake of a fair comparison, the three-month trailing traffic averages were taken on the same day as those relating to the websites covered in the earlier article British Nationalism on the Web: Who’s up and Who’s down – 9^th January 2012.

The first thing to note is that generally speaking this group of sites attracts less traffic than nationalist sites, although in a number of instances their Facebook followings are very significant. Two anti-English campaigning organisations will be tiresomely familiar to readers: Hope Not Hate (HNH) and Unite Against Fascism (UAF). Once these two worked closely together, but then had a spat over tactics and fell out. Despite UAF’s massive financial muscle afforded by its TUC backing, its website is less popular than that of HNH (you may be surprised to learn that at times its popularity has even trailed that of Durotrigan): their global traffic rankings being HNH 765,262 and UAF 1,458,466. Nationally, UAF edged ahead slightly, being ranked at 54,474 compared to 57,436. Being globalist internationalists however, neither body would attach significance to this second set of figures, surely? Compared to the global popularity of the nationalist websites, these two lag way down the list behind the BNP, British Freedom Party, EDL, BNP Ideas, UKIP and Britain First. In terms of Facebook ‘friends’ however, both HNH and UAF score highly, with the former having 50,436 (behind the BNP only) and the latter 15,579 (placing it also behind the EDL).

Facebook is of course the social networking site par excellence and its defining feature has, I think, something interesting to say about nationalism and public reticence (or fear): one’s likes and dislikes are available for everyone to see. Thus, whereas it is socially acceptable to be seen to be ‘anti-racist’ and ‘anti-fascist’, generally speaking it is not socially acceptable to be seen to be nationalist or anti-Islamist. The Facebook phenomenon thus leads to a distorted overrepresentation of the level of support for what are seen to be ‘socially acceptable’ groups compared to those that are assigned pariah status by the mainstream media. It could, for example, be risky to state that you were a ‘friend’ of the EDL or a nationalist group on your profile as your employer or one of your colleagues might see it with potentially damaging repercussions.

Having mentioned Facebook and the EDL, let’s look at the latter’s sworn foe that sprang up as a negative copycat organisation/campaign: the Muslim Defence League (MDL). The MDL doesn’t have a website of its own, but its Facebook page is almost as popular as that of the EDL’s, clocking in with 25,308 ‘friends’, just 1,800 behind. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK), which was set up to increase Muslim political participation and representation across the country has both a website and a Facebook page, and proves to outstrip the popularity of the Trotskyist political parties by a mile. Out of the sample under examination, MPACUK has the highest website ranking at 317,632 globally and 21,593 in the UK. This places its traffic between that of UKIP and Britain First on a global level, but behind them within the UK. Its Facebook following of 6,408 places it slightly ahead of the English Democrats, makes it more than twice as popular as the British Freedom Party and three times as popular as UKIP. 

Turning now to the Trotskyite rump parties, it is clear that in terms of the internet they are easily outpaced by the bulk of nationalist sites (and indeed by many nationalist blogs). The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) attracts a global traffic ranking of 1,940,152, but fails to generate enough traffic for a UK ranking. The Respect Party comes in at a derisory ranking of 20,402,382, placing it close to the Freedom Democrats in respect of its unpopularity, yet how many times have we seen the scowling face of its leader Salma Yaqoob on Question Time?! With respect (pardon the pun) to Facebook, the SWP manages to attract 3,745 ‘friends’, placing it someway behind the English Democrats but ahead of the British Freedom Party. Respect by contrast, has 257.

Conclusion

Generally speaking, anti-nationalist organisations, campaigns and parties are not generating as much traffic to their main websites as nationalists, but in terms of their Facebook following, the two big anti-nationalist campaigns/bodies HNH and UAF do exert a significant degree of public appeal. What is striking is that despite its relatively small size and limited activist base, the SWP manages to have an undue influence upon political life in the UK. There are lessons it would seem, that could possibly be learnt from elements of its strategy and tactics. Who in the long term will win the propaganda war?

We should of course be cautious with respect to overinterpreting the significance of such figures, for if they genuinely reflected the public's political mood, then the BNP, British Freedom Party, EDL, BNP Ideas and UKIP would be the largest political parties/groups in the country, for their websites all outstrip the popularity of those belonging to the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Quite clearly this is not the case, but instead bears testimony to the dull and predictable content of the sites belonging to the big three.

Anti-nationalist Symbol of the Trotskyist Fourth International 

Independent covers EDL-British Freedom Party Alliance

Today the Independent ran a story on the recent announcement that the EDL was to back the British Freedom Party. Initially, it ran under the headline of ‘Angry face of far-right protest prepares to storm local elections’, but was later toned down to the rather more sober ‘English Defence League prepares to storm local elections’.

Unsurprisingly, the coverage was not what you would call sympathetic, but at least on this occasion the likes of UAF and Hope Not Hate were not provided a platform from which to spew their language of anti-English hate, employing the mandatory (in their eyes) vitriolic epithets of ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’ and ‘racist’ with respect to their objects of loathing: the EDL and British Freedom. Instead, the Independent drafted in self-styled ‘expert’ on ‘far-right’ politics, Dr Goodwin from the University of Nottingham, to provide a little context on this development for Independent readers who will not generally be aware of what has occurred in nationalist politics over the past twelve months or so. He foresees that there should be scope for significant growth for British Freedom, as he rightly acknowledges that there exists a mainstream political void in this country when it comes to the question of mass immigration and the desire to tackle it.

Websites inimical to nationalism have not been backward in offering their opinions on the recent tie-up between the EDL and British Freedom, the UAF site claiming that this agreement to co-operate was essentially a classic ‘fascist’ arrangement:

The new alliance – by bringing together the electoral BFPand the EDL thugs – gives the fascists their traditional two-pronged attack.

Strangely, they do not seem to apply this warped logic to their own campaigns and organisation, which mobilise considerable numbers of people to take to the streets and violently confront the EDL and members of nationalist parties. UAF is but the street wing of the SWP and the Labour Party, and has been since its inception. It exists to destroy freedom of speech through intimidation and violence, threatening anyone of whatever political persuasion who dares to disagree with their ‘no-platform’ policy. Neither the EDL nor British Freedom believe in the ‘no-platform’ position, and instead support free speech. Which side therefore, would you adjudge to be more ‘fascist’ in its attitude and behaviour? UAF is organised mass thuggery, yet peculiarly the state does not seem to be concerned about its methods and objectives.

More publicity is on the way for British Freedom, as Paul Weston is to be interviewed by the BBC over the coming week. The party has recently been given a boost to both its membership and visibility by its alliance with the EDL; what is required now is to keep the momentum going and to build an effective and disciplined campaigning party machine capable of winning elections. This is perfectly achievable, and if this process is handled correctly and intelligently, electoral success awaits the British Freedom Party, whereas the lies of UAF will be exposed for the hostile fabrications that they are.

Forthcoming EDL Rochdale Demo: Saturday 5 March

It has emerged that the EDL will be holding a demo outside of Rochdale Town Hall this Saturday between 12:00 and 15:00. According to Rochdale online, a promotional poster for the event reads:

The English Defence League is to hold a demonstration in the town of Rochdale to highlight the peoples concerns over the grooming culture amongst the Islamic communities. Recent investigations by [Greater] Manchester Police has led to a number of arrests of Asian men and the former Home Secretary Jack Straw finally bringing this issue to [the] attention of the media and public.

Well, unfortunately there certainly is a “grooming culture” amongst sections of the UK’s Muslim population which stems directly form the example of the life of their ‘Prophet’. As you can see from the squirming displayed by respondents to the Quiz for Muslims, they are unwilling to condemn their model of the ‘perfect’ human being – Mohammed – for his paedophilia. Underage non-Muslim girls, particularly English girls, have been targeted by Muslim paedophile gangs in (amongst other places): Blackburn, Derby, Keighley and Rotherham. If a Muslim will not condemn the paedophilia of his or her beloved Prophet Mohammed, then they should not be permitted to work with children. Getting such individuals debarred from working in nurseries, schools and youth groups should become one of the EDL’s key objectives. This could be enforced by requiring Muslims to sign a statement condemning the paedophilia of Mohammed when applying for jobs. Who could object to such a perfectly reasonable requirement? Either you condemn paedophilia, or you condone it.

Only within this last week, the Daily Mail reported that an English judge by the name of Gareth Hawkesworth passed a derisory sentence on a 26-year-old Muslim named Turon Ali, giving him a 12-month suspended sentence for grooming a 14-year-old schoolgirl. The Mail reports that Ali:

groomed the schoolgirl by sending her explicit text messages and then arranged a secret meeting where he planned to abuse her.

He was only prevented from sexually assaulting the girl when her older brother found one of the texts and alerted police.

But Ali avoided jail at Cambridge Crown Court with a 12-month suspended sentence after a top judge ruled he was 'not a paedophile as such'.

Judge Gareth Hawkesworth said: 'You thought she was ''easy' meat''. You were thrust into a moral vacuum without a single care of what you might be doing.

'You are not a paedophile as such. You are simply a young man who was unable to control his sexual urges.'

In this case, we can see the very worst effects of cultural relativism and politically correct culture in the UK today, which has gone so far that it now apparently allows some Muslim paedophiles to prey upon our children without effective sanction. Turon Ali wasn’t operating in ‘a moral vacuum’ as the judge claimed, but was actually fulfilling his Prophet’s injunction to exploit the female children of unbelievers to gratify his own sexual appetite.

Saturday’s EDL demo has been little publicised, so it is doubtful that it will be a large-scale affair. Nonetheless, the usual violent ‘no-platform’ protesters from the Islamo-Marxist Left including the UAF, Islamic Defence League (do they mean Muslim Defence League?) and a group called ‘Stop the racist EDL coming to Rochdale’ (sounding suspiciously like a joint ‘Hope Not Hate’ and local authority front) are planning to counter-demonstrate. If these groups didn’t turn up to EDL demos, there would be little or no disorder. Hopefully, the police will therefore ensure that EDL supporters are free to exercise their right to peaceful protest without hindrance from their hysterical opponents. Somehow though, this may well not be the case.

UPDATE
For thoughts on a Rochdale Muslim's perspective on the EDL's forthcoming protest, see 'Majed’s 'magic' World of Dawah in Rochdale'. A promotional video outlining some of the specific cases that prompted this demonstration can be accessed here.

EDL Luton Demo: First Reports and Tommy Robinson’s support for David Cameron’s Speech on Multiculturalism

Initial reports coming in from the EDL demo in Luton today indicate that circa 2,000 police have been deployed to keep public order and prevent UAF protesters from clashing with the EDL. The Hope Not Hate campaign claimed that by midday around 1,000 EDL supporters had arrived, whereas the EDL itself is hoping to bring 10,000 protesters to the streets. It has also been claimed that some coachloads of EDL protestors have been turned back because the passengers were drunk. German, Dutch and Swedish Defence League flags have been spotted, highlighting the international links that the EDL has developed over the years.

Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate has written: 

EDL leader Stephen Lennon has said of Cameron's multicultural comments: "He's now saying what we're saying. He knows his base."

That just about sums up Cameron's ridiculous and badly timed intervention.

For all that Lowles says, although Cameron’s speech is billed as ‘rejecting multiculturalism’ in favour of a ‘muscular liberalism’, I can guarantee that this will be nothing more than an attempt to gain some favourable headlines in papers such as the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Given that press releases have referred to his wish to tackle ‘extremist ideologies’ (note the plural) I predict that subsequent policy will instead consist of a ‘muscular multiculturalism’ which will focus equally upon damning Islamism and British/English nationalism. You will recall Cameron’s injunction from a year or two ago for mainstream British society to learn from mainstream Muslim values. Witness also Sayeeda Warsi’s shrill prelude to the oncoming anti-nationalist witch-hunt with her admonition of members of the indigenous middle class for their so-called socially acceptable ‘Islamophobia’.

Cameron will focus as much upon attacking the EDL as he will upon Islamism. Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) will thus be fooling himself if he thinks that ‘cast iron Dave’ will do anything to seriously tackle Islamisation in this country. For example, the Tories are already committed to overseeing an expansion in the network of faith schools and are now funding Muslim schools which will rear a generation of English-despising Muslims with a superiority complex coupled with the usual sense of Muslim resentment about the wider non-Islamic society within which they reside. This is the reality of Cameron’s ‘attack’ upon multiculturalism. Cameron’s seeming shift on this issue should be seen in the same light as his promise to hold a referendum on the EU and to limit mass immigration, both of which were worthless verbiage. The fact that Cameron chose to make his speech on the same day as the Luton demo suggests that he is attempting to undermine the base of support for the EDL. In that respect Tommy, Cameron indeed ‘knows his base’ (click here for a more in-depth consideration of Cameron's speech).

Press Reaction
Press reaction to the EDL’s Luton outing has been predictably hostile, using the usual panoply of National Union of Journalists (NUJ) pariah terms: the Daily Mail dubbed the EDL ‘far-right’, called its protest ‘inflammatory’ and dutifully and uncritically reported the UAF chant of ‘Nazi scum off our streets’ which made the paper complicit in this defamation of the movement. The Daily Mirror called it ‘far-right’, and even went so far as to regurgitate Labour MP Sadiq Khan’s ridiculous accusation that Cameron’s speech about multiculturalism was tantamount to 'writing propaganda for the EDL'. The Guardian predictably ran with an hysterical edition featuring numerous articles on the ‘far-right’ EDL, with its harridan Suzanne Moore describing the EDL as using the ‘language of fake inclusiveness’ and as being ‘the mirror image of Al-Mahajiroun’. She once again deployed that tired old canard linking economic bad times and the rise of the ‘far right’: ‘Far-right movements will, of course, thrive during a recession.’ Nick Lowles of ‘anti-fascist’ campaign group Hope Not Hate was also afforded the opportunity to write an opinion piece on the EDL. The movement must be doing something right to whip up this near-universal torrent of opprobrium.

Always remember that the tactics used by the mainstream media, politicians and leftist campaigns against patriotic movements and parties opposed to globalisation and Islamisation can be summarised by the following acronym: SID. This stands for stigmatise, isolate and destroy. Whenever you read reports about the EDL or patriotic parties here or across Europe, remember to read them taking this tactic into account. Robinson's speech to the EDL crowd in Luton's St George's Square can be viewed here:

EDL Protestors at Luton Station (courtesy of PI News)

EDL Protestors in Luton Town Centre

http://durotrigan.blogspot.com/2011/02/tommy-robinson-addresses-edl-in-lutons.html

Politicised Leicestershire Police Force wants to ban EDL Leicester Demo

According to a report appearing in this morning’s Leicester Mercury, Leicestershire Chief Constable Simon Cole has claimed that members of the English Defence League (EDL) are planning to attack a mosque in Leicester as part of their protest in the city on 9 October. Anyone who is aware of what the EDL really stands for knows that it would never do such a thing, and it is crystal clear that this baseless assertion by Leicestershire Constabulary is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to ban the march. Nonetheless, it would seem that this allegation has helped to marshall the votes of the city's councillors, for the BBC reports  that they have voted unanimously for a ban on the march. The Home Secretary Theresa May is expected to take a decision on this request in the coming week, and it seems predictable what the outcome will be.

This assertion that the EDL march poses a “major threat” to public order is based upon a putative intelligence report from 8 September. EDL demonstrations have never involved attacks upon mosques. By releasing such alleged ‘intelligence’ the police are stoking tensions amongst highly volatile elements within the Muslim population and generating fear where none should be. This is tantamount to inciting hatred against members of the EDL. The Leicester Mercury quotes the police report as follows:

Intelligence dated September 8, 2010, indicated that the EDL intend to come to Leicester and attack a mosque before marching into the Highfields area, which represents the highest resident population of the Muslim community.

This reflects previous intentions of EDL processions, such as that within Leicester, where actions were targeted to cause disruption to the Muslim community by provoking serious public disorder.

The police plan is to use these assertions as the basis to apply to the Home Office for a ban on the EDL protest, although as in Bradford last month they would be powerless to prevent a static demonstration from taking place so police overtime payments shouldn’t be too detrimentally affected. Nice money if you can get it on the back of stoking tensions in Leicester. Whilst on the subject of stoking tensions, UAF are planning a ‘counter-demonstration’ which will feature the usual lies about the EDL designed to try and recruit deluded doctrinaire Muslims into their Islamo-Marxist axis with the ultimate aim not of combating what they term ‘racism’, but of overthrowing the state through non-democratic means.

According to the UAF website, their meeting in Leicester on Thursday evening was attended by about 200 supporters who listened to a number of speakers trotting out the usual tired cliches of so-called ‘anti-racism’ in support of multiculturalism and Islam. The words of Leicester councillor Patrick Kitterick illustrate the type of combative leftist posturing so beloved of those whose comprehension of the complex reality of the social and political worlds around us is limited to slogans and formulaic Marxisant literature:

We’ve got to defend the city. We can’t let the EDL turn it upside down. October 9 will make us all stronger, not weaker – on Saturday we’ll defend the city from the EDL.

Unusually, Hope not Hate (another Communist controlled professional ‘anti-racist’ (sic) outfit headed by Gerry Gable) will be holding what it terms a ‘peace vigil’ on the evening preceding the protest! The leaderships of Hope not Hate and UAF fell out a number of years ago, so it is a surprise to see them both planning to campaign in Leicester in October.

The alarmist police report has already generated quotes from prominent talking heads within Leicester’s Muslim ‘community’, such as from Suleman Nagdie (Chairman of the Federation of Muslim Organisations) and Ibrahim Mogra (associate Imam at Evington Muslim Centre) denouncing the “planned attack”. Are these men really so misguided as to believe that the EDL would plan an attack on a mosque, or are they cynically using this phantom threat as a means to get the EDL protest banned so that they can continue unimpeded in their business of proselytising for Islam in Leicester?

Quite rightly, Guramit Singh the EDL organiser of the intended Leicester protest has rebutted the police claims re a planned mosque attack and has stated:

We are coming to Leicester to peacefully demonstrate and we denounce attacks on any mosques. We are here to fight militant Islam, not moderate Islam. The intelligence provided by the police is incorrect.

In a week during which six men have been arrested on a baseless charge of inciting 'racial hatred' for burning copies of the Qur'an in Gateshead, I wish good luck to Guramit and to all members and supporters of the EDL in making the Leicester demonstration one which is peaceful and successful despite police and leftist attempts to stifle free expression. May you continue to alert the public to the real threat to our way of life posed by an active and growing Islamism.