Muslim Prison Populations in Europe

Much has been written in the UK over the past year highlighting the disproportionate representation of Muslims in the prison population; moreover, the deeply worrying phenomenon of Muslim gangs targeting inmates for conversion has been brought to light. According to the Labour Market Survey the UK had a Muslim population of a little over 2.4 million in 2008 out of a total population of 61.4 million, some 3.9% of the total. However, in that same year some 12% of the prison population of England and Wales was recorded as being Muslim.

Although these figures demonstrate the statistically higher frequency of criminality amongst the Muslim population in England and Wales, data from elsewhere is even more startling. A report in the Washington Post from 2008 stated:

Research by the Open Society Institute, an advocacy organization, shows that in the Netherlands 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim; the country is about 5.5 percent Muslim. In Belgium, Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace, the research found.

These figures are bad, but they pale in comparison with those encountered within the French penal system:

As a matter of policy, the French government does not collect data on race, religion or ethnicity on its citizens in any capacity, making it difficult to obtain precise figures on the makeup of prison populations. But demographers, sociologists and Muslim leaders have compiled generally accepted estimates showing Muslim inmate populations nationwide averaging between 60 and 70 percent.

Bivouac-ID notes that more conservative estimates of the French Muslim prison population still place it at in excess of 50% of the total. As in the UK, French prisoners are targeted for conversion to Islam, with an estimated 400 Islamists proselytising within the French prison system in 2008. The current French population is estimated at 65.4 million with some 5 million French citizens being Muslim (7.6%). Neighbouring Switzerland too has a significant overrepresentation of Muslims within the prison system. For example, the overcrowded Champ Dollon Prison in Geneva reported that in 2009, 56.6% of its inmates were Muslim.

Clearly, there is a problem of Muslim criminality which manifests itself across the societies of Western Europe which have admitted a significant influx of Muslim immigrants. A small part of this disproportionate representation will arise from the fact that the Muslim populations are younger than those of the host societies’ average owing to the higher Muslim fertility rate. In the UK for example, there were an estimated 301,000 Muslims under the age of 4 in September 2008. We should therefore expect the bulge in the Muslim criminal population to grow even further in the years ahead.

Having provided a brief sketch of the size of Muslim prison populations in a number of European states, I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what these statistics demonstrate. Do they illustrate the innate ‘racism’ of the host societies and the alleged relative economic deprivation of Muslim populations as the official explanations would have you believe; or, is it the case that they demonstrate the innate incompatibility of Islam with our societies and the contempt of doctrinaire Muslims for the kuffar?

Christine Tasin receives Facebook Fatwa

The Bivouac-ID blog notes that on 6 September Christine Tasin, organiser of last Saturday’s anti-Islamisation protest Grand Apéritif Républicain, discovered that a ‘fatwa’ had been issued against her on Facebook. The threatening message was entitled 'Blasphemy is an offence in Islam!' The text read:

A Fatwa has been pronounced against you. All Muslims of France and Navarre, wherever they find themselves, have the duty to execute the said fatwa. The law of the Qur’an states that whosoever blasphemes against Islam must be hunted down and punished.

This is alarming but hardly unexpected. Tasin notes that such threats should not be dismissed lightly, pointing to the examples of Theo van Gogh and Robert Redeker. Thankfully, unlike van Gogh, Redeker remains alive, but alas leads a far from normal existence having been forced into hiding in 2006 following his publication of an article in Le Figaro in which he wrote 'Islam is a religion that, in its own sacred text, as well as in its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred.'

Tasin however is not cowed by the Facebook fatwa. She writes:

We will never give in to this threat; we are more than ever determined to oppose with all our might the establishment of an Islamic society in France. It is our duty to our children and our grandchildren who have not deserved this.

Unsurprisingly, the fatwa has confirmed her view that Islam and Shariah are incompatible with French law and the French way of life. Following the fatwa, she has already received two death threats within 24 hours and the French police are said to be taking the threats seriously. She will be giving a press conference on the subject of freedom of expression at the Convention Nationale de Rif this Saturday. How will the French Left react to this threat to Tasin’s safety? Will we see MRAP denouncing the ‘fatwa’? Will a French mainstream political equivalent of Thilo Sarrazin step forward to speak out about the dangers of Islamisation? I very much doubt it.

Qur’an 5:32 "Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all humankind.”

Have you ever heard an apologist for Islam quote this before claiming that it demonstrates that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’? In the following video (hat tip to Tundra Tabloids) it will not surprise you to see Anjem Choudary defining this stipulation as applying exclusively to Muslims. What may jolt you, if you have fallen for this quote previously, is the automatic agreement of his presumably ‘moderate’ Muslim interviewer working for CNN. Did you honestly think that they’d define kuffar such as ourselves as innocent?

The qur’anic verse which follows this alleged demonstration of Islam’s tolerance reads:

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the hereafter.

How does a doctrinaire Muslim define waging war against their god and prophet? How does a doctrinaire Muslim define ‘mischief through the land’? Given the Muslim propensity to keep redefining jihad (i.e. holy war) as personal struggle whenever it suits them to do so, I suspect that they would not hesitate to show a great deal of flexibility in their interpretation of this verse and apply it to anyone who actively obstructs Islam’s advance or who denigrates its repellent content. Acts of terror and intimidation coupled with the ready ‘offence’ taken by Muslims across the globe whenever anyone questions their religion or prophet would appear to provide ample demonstration of such an interpretation.

The relevant section of the interview is circa 30-35 seconds in.

Thilo Sarrazin versus Angela Merkel: Who’s Right?

Following the furore ignited by Thilo Sarrazin’s publication of his book Germany Abolishes Itself (Deutschland schafft sich ab), German Chancellor Angela Merkel has acknowledged in an interview with Bild am Sonntag that statistics show that young Muslims in Germany tend to be more violent than the rest of the population. However, this recognition was mealy-mouthed and thus fell back upon the fallacious politically correct assertion that this violence was fuelled by a lack of opportunity and poor education within Germany’s Muslim population. According to Deutsche Welle, Merkel stated:

This is a big problem and we can talk about it openly, without arousing suspicions of xenophobia.

Violence among young people is often a sign that they see no perspective for themselves. All that helps is education, education, education.

Our state is making many offers, but the main responsibility lies with the parents, and cannot be taken on by schools or the state.

Merkel is attempting to bury the problem. Unfortunately, it will refuse to remain buried and rise like the undead to continue to suck the lifeblood from German society.

Thilo Sarrazin has done nothing more in his book than be honest about the Muslim problem in Germany and to baldly state the facts with respect to the genetic distinctiveness of Basques and Jews. From the way that the global media has reacted you would have thought that Sarrazin had claimed that Basques and Jews were Untermenschen, which, thankfully, he most certainly has not. The Sydney Morning Herald ran a hysterical report on Sarrazin entitled ‘A creepy banker fleshes out the modern fascist’ in which he was compared to Dr Strangelove. A man calmly points out that his country is being dragged down and taken over by violent Muslim colonists and yet he is the one accused of being a Nazi. Incredible!

The German Establishment is turning on Sarrazin, although the Chairman of the SPD Sigmar Gabriel has conceded that ‘I think we are experiencing much of what he is describing in (the book). There is no question.’ Reuters reports that the Bundesbank board has stated that Sarrazin’s comments had ‘hurt the image of the Bundesbank.’ It claimed that ‘Discrimination had no place at the bank.’ Furthermore, Merkel had ‘urged the central bank to act.’ The implication is that Merkel would like to see Sarrazin removed from the executive board of the Bundesbank. Such a move would however be subject to a legal challenge, as Sarrazin has pointed out that it could ‘only remove him for serious misconduct.’

By pointing out that Muslim citizens are a net economic drain on Germany, that they resist integration and are more prone to commit acts of violence Sarrazin has done nothing more than his public duty. He is justified in stating "I don't want us to end up as strangers in our own land, not even on a regional basis." Who could object to that? Alas, the numbers who do are legion: those brainwashed by the politically correct ideology of multiculturalism.

As the Tundra Tabloids points out, Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist who for a number of years worked to try and rehabilitate Muslim youth offenders came to the conclusion that they were simply unreformable because they possessed a radically different mentality to native Danes. He became disillusioned with his work and wrote a book on his experience and thus incurred the condescending wrath of the politically correct. It is worth quoting Sennels at length, for his characterisation of the Islamic problem in Europe is, I think, factually correct:

We are in the historical embarrassing situation that we have invited millions of people to our continent that do not want to integrate and are also not able to. Since the integration of Muslims will never happen – a fact I think that has already been proven years ago – we will end up with a significant part of our population that are actively working to Islamize our societies. There exist both Muslims and non-Muslims that see this Islamization as Islamic jihad – but it is more than that: it is human nature. People who do not feel at home where they live will naturally strive to change their surroundings. Muslims attempts to Islamize our societies have just begun — as they are feeling stronger and stronger in power and numbers. This process is pushed forward by Muslim leaders inside and outside Europe and helped on its way by a kind of collective cowardice called Political Correctness.

The concerns articulated by Sennels and Sarrazin are widely shared by ordinary members of the public across Europe who have had direct experience of the negative impact of Islamisation. Currently, Geert Wilders is the most obvious and successful political manifestation of this concern, but the question is: will more political figures make the personally perilous transition from political to factual correctness in speaking about the Islamic issue in our societies? We are still a long way from a political tipping point where this could become possible, but it seems that the ugly reality of the Islamic colonisation of European societies may finally be dawning upon some of the members of our political elites who can afford to insulate themselves from the negative impact of this process. Nonetheless, although Germany's political elite may be embarrassed by Sarrazin's views, his opinions certainly possess some traction with the German electorate, with an opinion poll conducted last Saturday indicating that 18% of respondents would vote for a party led by Sarrazin.

Unfortunately I fear that those who are ideologically committed to multiculturalism may never awaken to Islam’s dangers, no matter what horrors the future may hold for us. According to a recent report in Deutsche Welle, a 36 year-old German-born Islamist named Ahmed S from Hamburg was captured in Afghanistan in early July and ‘has warned of possible terrorist attacks in Germany and elsewhere in Europe.’ He had joined the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and was linked to Hamburg’s recently closed Taiba mosque which served as the meeting place for the 9/11 terrorists. This information was extracted following interrogation by the Americans. Hopefully, any such plans (if they prove to be real) will be disrupted, but even if the tactics of violent jihad should fail, Germany’s current policies run a strong risk of allowing demographic jihad to succeed. This is why Sarrazin’s book should be welcomed rather than reviled.

What happened to the Grand Apéritif Républicain?

Reports on yesterday evening’s series of French anti-Islamisation demonstrations planned for Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon, Toulon and Toulouse reveal that turnout was disappointingly low, ranging from perhaps 300 in Paris to a meagre 20 or so at other locations (circa 60 in Lyon according to the police). Understandably, the Bivouac-ID blog, which was one of the main backers of the protest, indignantly asked its readers “but where were you?”

Bivouac-ID, resolutely anti-Islamisation and attracting a readership of thousands every day, was quite right to chastise its readers for their apathy despite their vocal cyber-support. This of course is not a phenomenon unique to France. Whereas in the past we had ‘armchair generals’ we now have so many ‘internet warriors’. If this sense of dissatisfaction does not translate itself into some form of practical political action such as protest or support for political parties that oppose Islamisation it is not exactly productive.

Other than apathy, some have speculated that many potential protesters may have been deterred from participating by fear of leftist counter-demonstrators and the police. In Toulouse, as can be seen in the video below, circa 100 demonstrators from ‘MRAP’ (Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples) forced the 20 or so anti-Islamists to cut short their protest. MRAP is very much in the mould of UAF in the UK, sharing ideological positions and strong links to communist parties. As in the UK, French anti-Islamists are thus routinely smeared as ‘racist’ and ‘far-right’.



This photograph from Lyon shows a small group of demonstrators in the centre of the city.

The following report from Paris features an interview with protest organiser Christine Tasin of Résistance Républicaine.



Although yesterday evening’s protest yielded disappointing numbers, it at least demonstrated that there are many dedicated people in France who are determined to stem and reverse the tide of Islamisation that threatens to engulf their country and culture. Hopefully, next time that such protests are held, those who had lent their vocal support to the Grand Apéritif Républicain but stayed at home will make an effort to show their solidarity to the cause and take to the streets.

An Eyewitness Report from the Bradford EDL Demo: Saturday 28 August 2010

Thanks to an anonymous reader of this blog for submitting the following report on last weekend’s EDL demonstration in Bradford, as well as for his attendance on all of our behalf’s.

Here is my personal account of Bradford EDL demo. On arriving in Forster Square EDL supporters had no option but to enter their Urban Garden protest area through metal detector arches. The uncultivated site was surrounded by 8ft fences, hundreds of police and numerous police vehicles. Forward Intelligence police Teams (FIT) were photographing activists to add to their ‘Domestic Extremists’ database. It resembled a temporary prison camp. So here we are in a so called free country with so called freedom of speech witnessing something straight out of authoritarian dictatorship. But it gets worse, directly opposite on the streets and pavements were several hundred baying opponents shouting abuse and threats without any attempt by the police to stop or arrest them.

When a minority of EDL protesters reacted to this provocation they were met with violence and aggression by riot police. The question to ask is why anti-Islamic extremists are kettled in a cordon denied the right to march when jihadi and left wing thugs are allowed to rampage around the streets. Its clear now that the political establishment want to see the end to EDL activities. The Home Secretary has already implemented a march ban. With the ‘violent thugs’ label now attached to the organisation and with police complaining about the operational costs related to the demonstrations the next step could well be further curbs and restrictions. The British state is closing in, EDL have to be prepared and have a radical response to any further attempts to neutralise its campaigns and legitimate right to protest.

Has Tony Blair woken up to the reality of the threat from ‘radical’ Islam?

In an interview with the BBC Blair said of ‘radical Islam’:

"There is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

"You can't take a risk with that happening."

Mr Blair said he agonised over how to respond to radical Islam and still had doubts that he was right.

These are really difficult issues, he said, but added: "This extremism is so deep that in the end they have to know that they're facing a stronger will than theirs."

So, Tony Blair has revealed that he sees ‘radical Islam’ as the ‘world’s greatest threat’. In ideological and practical security terms, I think that he is correct, but only half so. Only half so because he fails to own up to the fact that ‘radical Islam’ is nothing more than applied Islam. It seems to me that this failure in his understanding is linked to his own personal ‘faith’ position and his unwillingness, shared by millions, to either acknowledge or accept that Islam is in many respects very different to other religions: dangerously different.

Blair has for many years, particularly since he resigned his position of Prime Minister, been open about his profession of Christian faith. Whatever your personal thoughts on Blair as a man and a politician, I think that his longstanding Christianity and conversion to Catholicism are sincere. It is indeed from his personal adherence to Christianity and its doctrines of the power of forgiveness, turning the other cheek and standing up for the underdog, that many of his problems in comprehending Islam flow. For him, he mistakes what Islam ought to be for what it is, i.e. he thinks that like Christianity it should be intensely pluralistic, flexible and accommodating to changing social mores, whereas it is not.

Like most Christians (indeed followers of any religion or secular political dogma) Blair cherry-picks the elements of Christianity and Catholicism that he finds palatable whilst ignoring others, and thus for example supports contraception despite papal opposition to this practice and the doctrine of papal infallibility. In this case, Blair thinks he knows (as indeed he does) better than the Pope. Doctrinaire Muslims do not behave in such a way. For them, all they think they need to know about how to lead a moral life is contained in the Qur’an. The majority also accept the legitimacy of the Sunnah and the hadith, although not unsurprisingly there are slightly different takes upon the legitimacy and application of their various aspects. In essence however, all doctrinaire Muslims are unified in their belief of the veracity and universal applicability of the qur’anic message.

Blair’s failure to develop a logical and adequate strategy of containing and dealing with ‘radical’ Islam thus arose from his confused apprehension of Islamic ideology. Whilst being at the vanguard of military efforts to ‘defeat’ this menace in Afghanistan and allegedly in Iraq, Blair simultaneously encouraged and protected Islam in the United Kingdom through the promotion of multiculturalism and an open borders mass immigration policy. Under the aegis of multiculturalism the population of the UK was subjected to draconian ‘hate’ laws such as the 2006 ‘Racial and Religious Hatred Act’ which were consciously formulated to protect and privilege Islam; ‘faith’ schools were encouraged, entrenching pre-existing segregation by providing state funding for Muslim institutions where pupils wasted (and still do waste) time on memorising the Qur’an and absorbing its anti-scientific and anti-rational dogma; the national curriculum required the brainwashing of non-Muslim children into believing that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, thus leaving them vulnerable to Muslim predation and proselytisation.

Due predominantly to the deliberate engineering of mass immigration to the UK, the Muslim population under Blair swelled rapidly, rising from an official 1.6 million in 2001 to 2.4 million by early 2009. So-called ‘refugees’ from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also swelled this expansion. At the same time as he removed pressures from Muslim immigrants and the established Muslim population to integrate into the life of the host population through assimilation, he buttressed its sense of separation through privileging and incentivising Muslim identities, doling out state funding to specifically Muslim projects and so-called ‘community leaders’.

As they expanded, the established Muslim enclaves in Britain’s cities and towns grew increasingly separate, their sense of exclusivity bolstered by the ongoing revolution in telecommunications presaged by satellite television and reaching its apotheosis in the spread of domestic internet access. Coupled with increasingly cheap transcontinental flights and ongoing large-scale chain migration, these factors ensured that the Muslim population in the UK increasingly alienated itself from the host population and sensed a growing sense of solidarity with a transnational ummah rather than with fellow non-Muslim citizens.

To this combustible mix of legal, political, demographic, sociological and technological factors working in favour of Islamisation in the UK, Blair then added two wars against Muslim majority states. Unsurprisingly, the state-sponsored fifth-column – UK passport holders belonging to the Ummah – responded negatively to these wars. That they hated non-Muslims beforehand and saw themselves as superior to non-Muslim Britons was beyond dispute, but Blair not only did not recognise this, but seemingly chose to goad them with his foreign policy. Although a case could be made for some form of military action against Afghanistan upon the grounds of combating Islamism, none could be in the case of Iraq. Admittedly, having looked at the relevant UN resolutions I am of the opinion that the Iraq War that began in 2003 was technically legal, but whether or not it was the right thing to do is a matter for debate. Personally, I do not think that it was wise to become involved in that particular conflict, for it had nothing to do with fighting Islamism. If we had wished to do the latter, it would have made far more sense to attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Whilst being cognisant of the Islamist threat emanating from Afghanistan, Blair remained unwilling to acknowledge its deep roots within the UK’s hostile fifth-column. His domestic policies, as those of his successors, served only to further entrench and nurture doctrinaire Islam in the UK. It is doctrinaire Islam that must be dealt with, and we can only deal with it effectively if we abandon multiculturalism and implement the following measures in the UK: make Muslim faith schools illegal; repeal all ‘hate’ legislation relating to religion; ban the proselytisation of Islam as being inimical to the public good; ban Muslim charities; ban all further Muslim immigration, including the ‘right to family reunion’; ban the further construction of mosques and madrassahs; withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights; purge the curriculum of dhimmitude and encourage apostasy within the resident Muslim population. This package of measures will be popular and just.

Instead, Blair continues to adhere to a schizoid path that will bring unnecessary bloodshed to our country. A radical change in domestic policy would be more productive in combating Islamism than military intervention overseas. Only once we have secured our own territory can we hope to extend moral assistance to those seeking to rid themselves of Islamism.

Like most rational people, I would not be happy if the incumbent Iranian regime acquired nuclear weapons, but more to the point, the Pakistanis already have them. Pakistan is an existing threat, yet this is not clearly articulated in our mass media or by our political elite because of the large Pakistani presence within our shores. If any military action were to be employed against Iran, it would need to be of a very precise and measured type. The Iranian people should not suffer because of the folly of the incumbent regime. Given time, pressure will further build for reform in Iran, but if we were to launch an indiscriminate attack upon the country it would gravely undermine the position of reformist voices. We must not fall into this trap.

Although it is encouraging to see Blair describing Islamist ideology as “regressive, wicked and backward-looking” he needs to wake up to the fact that ‘radical’ Islam is nothing more than applied Islam. Once Blair and others like him have finally recognised what Islam is, then we will be able to get down to the business of dealing with this problem effectively and decisively. Ultimately, the resolution of this problem must be ideological, but for us to triumph our people must possess the necessary resolve, and this can only be acquired if we ditch the misguided political dogma of multiculturalism. This is something to which Blair remains deeply committed. He means well, but as the old proverb goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Unite Against Fascism’s Mission decoded in EDL Video

Courtesy of the EDL Extra blog comes the following rather wry take on the warped attitudes of UAF (Unite Against Fascism).

Grand Apéritif Républicain Protest Grows

The French Grand Apéritif Républicain anti-Islamisation campaign is growing. Originally it had been intended to hold its composite apéros républicains in five locations: Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon, Strasbourg and Toulouse, but now Toulon has also been added to the list. As you can see from the poster above, it looked as if Aix was also to host a protest, but this now appears to have been cancelled.

For English speakers holidaying in France, why not turn up at 6pm on Saturday 4 September and join the locals in condemning the Islamisation of France. The protest’s organiser, Christine Tasin of Résistance Républicaine, lists the rendezvous points as follows, but warns that locations may be subject to change if the local authorities so decree:

Paris, place de la Bourse.

Bordeaux, attention, changement de lieu. Devant le 1, Cours Xavier Arnozan (Angle du Cours Xavier Arnozan et du Quai des Chartrons) - Et non plus place Gambetta comme prévu.

Lyon, place Bellecour, à côté de la statue de Louis XIV

Strasbourg, Parc de l’Orangerie (face au Conseil de l’Europe)

Toulon, place de la Liberté

Toulouse, Prairie des Filtres (Près du Pont-Neuf et du Cours Dillon).

Charles Martel turns in his Grave as a new Mosque rises

Poitiers, the city that bears the name of one of the most historically significant military victories over Islam, is being blighted by the construction of a new mosque with capacity for 1,000 worshippers.

In 732 Charles Martel and his Frankish knights finally stemmed the advance of the Islamic invaders who had conquered vast swathes of territory since crossing into Spain in 711. Had he not done so, Edward Gibbon speculated that minarets would have sprouted in Oxford not long thereafter. Mercifully, thanks to Martel and his men this was not to be the case (although alas, minarets have now punctured Oxford’s skyline). If Martel and his men had known that a large mosque would one day be constructed on the site of their famous victory and, moreover, funded by the French state, I think that they would have roundly cursed their descendents.

Although I had previously heard about plans to build a large mosque in Poitiers, I did not know that it was being lavishly funded by the French state. The site itself was purchased for the nominal sum of €1 whereas a further €300,000 has been provided by the Government towards the mosque’s construction on the understanding that it will be staffed by ‘moderate’ imams. Thus another European city begins its submission to Islam. What, I wonder, would ordinary French taxpayers think of this? Hat tip to Galliawatch for posting the following video:

French anti-Islamists plan Demonstration: Grand Apéritif Républicain 4 September

Following the success of the apero in Paris on 18 June, the website Riposte Laique and a coalition of twenty other groups and bloggers is planning another apero that they have dubbed the Grand Apéritif Républicain which will take place on 4 September to mark the 140th anniversary of the founding of the proclamation of the Third Republic. This time, protests against Islamisation will be held in a number of cities across France: Paris, Bordeaux, Lyon, Strasbourg and Toulouse. If Riposte Laique were operating in the UK, mainstream pundits and organisations/campaigns such as UAF, Searchlight and the SWP would be attempting to stigmatise it as ‘far right’, whereas in fact it represents a voice that is alas all but absent in the UK: that of the traditional rationalist patriotic Left.

In its article 'Number 159' the Riposte Laique website makes its political stance clear, outlining all that is positive that has been won by the French Left and needs defending (any errors in translation are entirely my fault):

For us, the spirit of the Left is embodied in its social achievements. We know that it was through the struggles of our forebears that we won the possibility of organising in the labour market, to form trade unions, obtained the right to strike, wrested the 40-hour week and paid holidays in 1936, not forgetting Social Security after the war, 5-week holidays and retirement at the age of 60 after the victory of Mitterand.

We know that these achievements have never issued from the Right, and still more so from the extreme Right, often complicit with the employers against the working class.

For us, the spirit of the Left inheres in the values of solidarity, humanism, egalitarianism, feminism and the social sphere, and we absolutely do not renounce these ideas.

But for us, the Left is also the Republic, and the defence of the Nation. Our conception of the Nation is absolutely not ethnic; it is founded upon the basis of acceptance of a contract. The rules are clear: one accepts the rules of the receiving country, then one becomes a citizen, has equal rights and duties. This is called assimilation.

Whether you agree or disagree with everything in the above statement, it is clear that the position of Riposte Laique (RL) is one of a very robust defence of distinctly French and secular positions; it is the voice of the unapologetically patriotic Left. Its sentiments are noble, and whilst I admire its organisational efforts to confront and check Islamisation, I do think that its implicit position on (mass) immigration is somewhat naive. Whilst I do believe that it is perfectly possible for relatively small numbers of immigrants to be successfully assimmilated into a receiving society, I am not of the opinion that this is possible or indeed desirable on a mass scale or with people from a radically different cultural background. Having said this, the RL article makes it clear that it is not in favour of ‘unrestrained immigration’, so I may be doing its writers a disservice and would welcome a clarification.

RL has been attacked by the conventional French multiculturalist Left and political Establishment which have tried to brand it ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’. RL’s retort to such smears seethes with a justifiable indignation, referring to this ‘Left’ as “gôche” rather than “gauche” which one can only guess is an understandably pejorative description. RL states:

This ‘Left’ dares to put the Republic at the centre of its projects: it defends street thugs (racailles) against honest people, delinquents against the police, unrestrained immigration against integration, Europe against the Nation, communalism against the Republic one and indivisible, Islam against secularism, the veil against the rights of women, globalism against popular and national sovereignty! It has not been the Left for a long time.

It is this sense of disgust with the multiculturalist Left that provides the impetus for RL to work with a variety of groups, campaigns and bloggers from right across the political spectrum, all united by their opposition to Islamisation. It will be interesting to see whether the recent unrest in Grenoble prompts a larger turnout for these demonstrations than was the case in Paris in June. RL deserves to be congratulated, and I shall eagerly await news of what I hope to be successful demonstrations across France on 4 September. Vive la France !

English Defence League to hold Static Demonstration in Bradford

Following the announcement that the Home Secretary has granted a ban on marches in Bradford over the August bank holiday weekend, the English Defence League (EDL) has announced that it will seek to stage a static demonstration. No powers exist to ban static demonstrations, so hopefully the EDL will be able to peacefully make its point without the violent interference of Unite Against Fascism (UAF). However, quite how the police will choose how to define a 'static demonstration' remains to be seen.

On a number of previous occasions, UAF supporters have deliberately fomented violence and attacked the police and the EDL, although mainstream media coverage of demonstrations in Birmingham, Leeds, Bolton and elsewhere has sought to portray the EDL as perpetrators of violence and has not highlighted the deliberate violence of UAF. An example of such distorted reporting was provided by Look North (Yorkshire BBC) in its treatment of the ban earlier this week; the reporter parroted the line that the EDL march had been banned to preserve public order and prevent an outbreak of violence which the ‘far-right’ (note the obligatory use of this stigmatising tag) group was said to encourage.

Whilst this ‘warning’ about the menace of EDL violence was delivered, footage of the Leeds EDL demonstration was shown but, and this is important to note, although the reporter was blaming the EDL for violence, the footage clearly showed members of the UAF attacking the police. This footage however was passed off as if the attackers were members of the EDL, and was thus either an example of exceptionally sloppy reporting or deliberate misrepresentation. Being cognisant of the content of the NUJ code on the reporting of ‘minority’ racial and religious issues, I am of the opinion that the second explanation is the correct one.

The mainstream media has deployed its standard stigmatising linguistic arsenal in dealing with the EDL’s attempt to demonstrate in Bradford, describing the EDL as ‘far-right’, ‘racist’, ‘controversial’ and ‘divisive’. It is strange how the Government, local authorities and mainstream media are happy to refer to ‘communities’ (thus illustrating the Balkanised ethno-confessional reality of Britain today) in their general discourse, yet refer to ‘community cohesion’ (note the use of the singular noun ‘community’) and some putative threat to its existence whenever the EDL seeks to demonstrate. The fact is, as they are perfectly aware, there is no ‘community’, for there are plural ‘communities’, and the population of Bradford most certainly does not constitute a ‘community’ in the singular. Bradford has become a bicultural city in which a cohesive Muslim colony stands against the rest of the population. It was not the so-called ‘far right’ that rioted in Bradford in 2001, but volatile members of this colony. There is no such thing as ‘community cohesion’ in Bradford. The reality is an ethno-confessional divide, so there is no ‘cohesion’ to disrupt.

As many people know, UAF is effectively run by the Trotskyist Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP), and the SWP by its own definition is a ‘revolutionary’ organisation that is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. It is therefore planning to gather its activists in Bradford on the same day as the EDL and has used inflammatory language specifically designed to whip up an atmosphere of fear in the hope that it will polarise opinion and lend them support. Thus their website states:

The EDL's aim is to intimidate and terrorise Bradford's Muslim community.

Therefore the We are Bradford celebration of unity, backed by Unite Against Fascism will be going ahead.

The use of the terms ‘intimidate and terrorise’ is not intended to calm the situation. What the SWP would desire above all else would be another Muslim riot such as the city witnessed in 2001 owing to their unquestioning belief in the legitimacy of ‘revolutionary violence’ and their selection of the Muslim population as a surrogate revolutionary proletariat. I wish the EDL success next weekend and hope that their demonstration goes without a hitch and without violence. If you see or read any reports of violence, examine them with a forensic thoroughness and seek to discern the actual course of events and who perpetrated any violence.