In an article written in July after the release of the
initial raw headline results from the 2011 Census, I noted how the highest
population increases in the country appeared to take place in the boroughs possessing the largest Muslim populations, and today’s release of census
results relating to religion appear to confirm this supposition. In July I observed that Tower Hamlets and Newham were recorded as displaying the greatest
rate of population increase between 2001 and 2011, and today’s results state that Tower
Hamlets has the highest share of Muslims in the country, and Newham the second,
with the percentages standing at respectively 34.5% and 32.0%.
In Yorkshire, Bradford had experienced the fastest population growth, and once again I had attributed this to its growing Muslim population. This latter supposition also seems to be borne out by the
statistics, for whereas the city’s Muslim population was recorded at 16.08% in 2001, the 2011 census reveals this percentage to have increased to 24.7%,
making it the borough with the fourth largest share of Muslims in the country.
Blackburn and Darwen, with 27.0%, stood in third place. Luton, the birthplace
of the EDL, possessed the fifth highest concentration of Muslims at 24.6%.
Across England and Wales as a whole, the number of Muslims increased rapidly during
this 10-year period to a total of 2.7 million, its proportion of the population
exploding from 3.0 to 4.8%.
The Muslim share of Bradford's population has risen by 53.6% in just ten years. Demographic Islamisation is thus a reality in England today,
and the greater the number that profess that faith, the louder will be the calls
for it to be protected and for the admission of co-religionists from overseas. Overall,
what with London now being not only a minority English but also a minority British city, the census results make for grim reading.
Shock. This is the word that best sums up my reaction to
today’s 2011 census results, and yet, what they revealed was not unexpected. Still,
seeing the stark reality of the statistics underscoring the rapid demographic
shift in our country is alarming. What is particularly symbolic is the fate of
London, nominally still our capital, but in an affective and emotional sense,
no longer so, for London is revealed not only to have ceased to be an English
city, but a British one too. We native White British are now in a minority in
our own capital city, comprising a mere 45% share compared to 55% alien; a
staggering decline in a decade, from the figure of 58% in 2001. How could this
have come to be? Moreover, in the time that has elapsed since the census was
taken, our share will have fallen further still. London is a lost city; a space rather than a place in which globalism rules.
The Scots may have Edinburgh, the Welsh Cardiff and the
Irish Dublin as their capitals, and they are still Scottish, Welsh and Irish
cities, but what we do we English have? Where is our capital? No longer is
London ours. Where then, should be our national spiritual home? London no
longer fits the bill. Alfred’s old capital of Winchester perhaps? York?
Worcester? Where? Where is England? Where is its heart? Where are we English now
able to feel comfortably at home? What has become of our country? Are we
permitted to possess a territory that we can call our own, or are we to become
fully dispossessed of what should by natural right be ours? We will, doubtless, be compelled to 'celebrate' this alleged 'diversity'.
In England and Wales, the Muslim population increased dramatically from 3.0% in 2001 to 4.8% (some 2.7 million people) in 2011. The percentage of people in England and Wales describing themselves as 'White British' declined from 87.5% to 80%. Similar processes are at play in France, and as can be seen here, French social attitudes now display a deep sense of unease with respect to the changes wrought in that country through decades of mass immigration and the rapid growth of the Islamic population.
What is this for? Who does this purport to represent?
It would seem almost superfluous to note that the situation
in Syria is very ugly, but irrespective of the complexities and the relative
‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ articulated by different elements within the pro- and
anti-regime camps, the civil conflict in that country is not our conflict, and
we have no business in becoming embroiled in it. Nonetheless, there has for
quite some time been a clear eagerness on the part of leading members of our
Government – as exemplified by William Hague in particular – to get involved in
some fashion, by lending assistance of one form of another to ‘the rebels’,
despite the significant if not leading role played by jihadists within this
opposition.
Assad is far from being a saint of course, but what do Hague
and the policy makers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office realistically
anticipate will replace him and his regime? One thing is for certain: it will
not be a Western-style liberal democracy. As elsewhere in the Arab world where
unrest has led to the toppling of long-established regimes over the past couple
of years, the most likely outcome is an Islamist government, and as events in
Egypt are demonstrating, this is unlikely to produce a system of consensual
governance based upon equality before the law for all of its citizens. Members
of Syria’s Christian population may look at the position of Egypt’s Copts, and
therein divine the sort of future that they can expect to face.
A report in today’s Guardianstates that David Cameron has
asked for plans to be drawn up ‘for maritime or air support to rebels’, but
with the proviso that such support would only be rendered in the event of the
US also intervening in the Syrian conflict. However, this request is reported
as generating unease amongst our chiefs of staff, who have drawn parallels with
the pressure brought to bear by Cameron in the lead-up to the intervention in
Libya, but note that in the case of Syria, the situation would be ‘very
different’ owing u/ &e s%)`army’s much stronger ground-to-air missile
capability. Hague, in wishful and myopic fa{hnog prZ)sts in constructing a
fantasy Syrian opposition which he hopes, according to the Guardian, will
‘unify around a coherent programme built on respect for human rights and ethnic
tolerance.’
The tide appears to have turned against the Assad regime,
but what comes next should be left up to the Syrians themselves. Intervening
because of the feeling that ‘something should be done’, is not a valid reason
for doing so. If we were to intervene, it would generate one sort of resentment
or another, and may not lead to an outcome that we would find desirable.
This blog does not really venture into the world of
obituaries, but today there will be an exception, for Sir Patrick Moore, a man
who helped to inspire generations of would-be astronomers to look up to the
skies, and to take an active interest in the world of science in general,
passed away shortly after midday. It was only earlier this week that he graced
our screens on The Sky at Night, a programme of which he had been the host
since its inception in 1957, almost six months before Sputnik inaugurated the
Space Age. Would Moore have thought, that at the relatively youthful age of 34
he would still be presenting the show right up until his death some 55 years
later at the age of 89? No other television programme around the globe has possessed
the same presenter for such a long period.
Sir Patrick was renowned for his mild eccentricity as
exemplified in his wearing of a monocle, and to a lesser extent, his virtuoso
xylophone playing. He was also a politically active man over many decades, and
the views that he held were very much unlike those of a stereotypical BBC
presenter. Whilst, as might be expected of many a BBC host, he was an opponent
of fox hunting and blood sports in general, he was also a strong Eurosceptic
and an admirer of Enoch Powell. In the 1970s, he held a staunch
anti-immigration position, and was Chairman of an entity named the United
Country Party before its merger with the New Britain Party. Later, he was to
become a keen advocate and patron of UKIP. Sir Patrick was refreshingly out of
kilter with the BBC mainstream, and was a man who spoke his mind. His presence
will be missed. Who, if anyone, will now take on the mantle of the BBC's elderly champion of non-PC attitudes?
Earlier this week a number of different papers ran a story
connected to the announcement that the proportion of male offenders in young
offender institutions had risen sharply to 21% of the total, with the further
observation that 42% of the prison body in this category came from what were
termed ‘black and minority ethnic communities’. What might these figures
suggest, and is there a link between an increased propensity to criminality in
England and Wales and the profession of Islam?
What strikes the reader immediately with respect to these
figures is the very high proportion of offenders not only self-reporting as
Muslim, but those who are non-indigenous. Why should this be? One of the
reasons, although the figures from the 2011 census relating to religion and
ethnicity have yet to be released, is that the share of such groups in the
younger population of England in particular, and Wales to a lesser extent, has
skyrocketed in recent years, but this in itself is unlikely to account for
these percentages, as such figures, excepting certain urban areas, will not
proportionately correspond to the composition of the population as a whole.
Clearly, other factors are at play.
In terms of the overall numbers, according to the Daily Mail
the offender population aged 15 to 18 numbered 1,543 ‘by the end of 2011/12’,
which was down from 1,822 in the preceding year, whereas the Guardian notes
that four years ago the total stood at 2,365. The proportion of males identifying themselves as Muslim has increased
from 13% in 2009-10 to 16% in 2010-11 to 21% in the recent ‘annual review of
children and young people in custody’.Both the Mail and the Guardian observed that a significant proportion –
around a third – of the overall offender population in this category had stated
that they had been in care for at least part of their childhood.
What neither of
these reports provide us with is information pertaining to the types of
offences committed by those held in young offender institutions, or an
indication as to whether the nature of offences was to a greater or lesser
extent associated with religion and ethnicity. Is there something distinct
about the type of offences committed by Muslim young offenders when compared to
their non-Muslim equivalents? What proportion of the self-reported Muslim
offenders were converts? Although it is likely that the percentage of the
latter is low given the age group under consideration, it has been observed
that in the mainstream prison system an increasing number of prisoners have been converting to Islam because of the contacts, ‘protection’ and perceived
‘privileges’ that belonging to Muslim gangs can afford.
It would be useful
also to see which ethnic backgrounds these young Muslim offenders hail from.
Are they predominantly from the longer established Pakistani and Bangladeshi
populations, or from amongst more recent Muslim arrivals to this country such
as Somalis and Afghans? Whatever the case, it would seem that their
self-identification as Muslims legitimises in their eyes the perception that
their transgression of the law is not such a serious matter, given that our
laws are not based upon the Sharia. Although no firm conclusion can be drawn
given the incomplete nature of the data at hand, the significant
overrepresentation of Muslims amongst this segment of the prison population –
as in the prison population more widely, not only in England and Wales, but elsewhere in Europe – is suggestive of a deep-seated lack of respect for, and
identification with, the host society and its values.
The
National Secular Society (NSS) has this week drawn attention to a poll
conducted by German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), the
subject of which was German attitudes towards Islam and Muslims. Its findings
illustrate that, quite justly, the majority of Germans do not look favourably
upon Islamic doctrine, and the NSS article notes that the attitudes in this
poll differ little from those displayed in one of a similar nature conducted in
May 2006. However, it is a great pity that details relating to the size of the
sample size, its composition and the timing of the research was omitted not
only from the NSS piece, but also from the original FAZ article.
The
paper, somewhat dramatically, calls the results of the poll “catastrophic”.
Why? It is clearly making a value judgement with respect to the opinions and
attitudes of ordinary Germans, and presumably, owing to its use of the word
“catastrophic”, finds that many Germans lack the politically correct view of
Islam that the paper would wish to endorse and promote.
A
total of 21 statements on Islam were offered to respondents who had to select
which ‘most closely reflected their opinion’. The NSS article summarised some
of the key findings as follows:
83%
of them think that Islam is associated with impairing women’s rights; 77%
thought Islam was a literalist religion; 70% said Islam is associated with
religious fanaticism and radicalism. A significant part of Germany’s population
also believes that Islam is ready for violence (64%), hatred (60%), active
missionary activity (56%), and striving for political influence (56%). Only 13%
of respondents associate Islam with love for neighbours, 12% with charity and
7% with openness and tolerance.
These
results do not differ much from a similar poll conducted in May 2006, although
that poll was taken at the height of the Mohammed cartoons controversy.
Why
are such findings deemed to be controversial when there are clearly strong
factual underpinnings for all of the ‘negative’ opinions about Islam listed above?
It would be far more worrying were members of the German public not to hold
these generally factually correct views about Islam.
With
respect to the question “Do you think tension in relations with Muslims will
grow in Germany in the nearest future and should we be afraid of it?” only 29%
of respondents believed that there was no threat. However, it is not clear what
percentage of the sample was Muslim and non-ethnically German, so it is
probable that the figure supporting this statement amongst ethnic Germans was
higher than the 71% cited. Overall, the poll is of interest insofar as it gives
us a suggestion as to the general public mood in Germany with respect to Islam,
but it is a great pity that details relating to the size and composition of the
sample have been omitted. Further results from the FAZ article can be accessed
at the NSS article here.
David Cameron would seem to have moved into the realm of
stand-up comedy today, but will his target audience find his ‘joke’ funny?
Apparently, he believes that mosques should allow gay marriages to take place
within their walls. How queer. One would have thought that an Eton education
combined with a first class honours degree in PPE from Oxford would have
equipped him with at least a rudimentary acquaintance with the content of other
belief systems, particularly one so prominent as Islam, given that it possesses
at least 1.6 billion followers, but evidently, this is not the case.
Given this glaring howler on the part of the Prime Minister,
one can only agree with the opinion of many members of his party that our
education system is ‘not fit for purpose.’ A gay marriage in a mosque could
readily double up as a funeral for the couple in question: just another
expression of the rich ‘diversity’ characteristic of contemporary Britain.
Here's a picture of Dave taken from no less a publication than 'The Muslim Weekly'
George Osborne’s announcement in yesterday’s Autumn Statement brought little cheer to anyone, but for all of Labour’s jeering about
the Condem’s inability to set the economy back on track, it is salutary to
recall that it was the reckless excessive indebtedness incurred by the last
Labour administration together with its full exposure of the UK’s capital
markets to the full shock of globalisation that landed us in the economic
predicament in which we find ourselves. Labour may call for additional public
spending – its ‘Plan B’ option – but their proposals would simply incur yet
more borrowing. Already, it has been announced that the UK could well lose its
triple A credit rating next year, but if Labour had been in power, it is
probable that this would already have gone.
Buried amidst the general gloom of his speech were a few
faint glimmers, which no doubt were intended to garner positive headlines.
Thus, besides the widely anticipated announcement that duty on petrol and
diesel would not increase by the planned three pence per litre early in 2013,
it was declared that the Chancellor intended to boost government investment in
infrastructure projects. However, a significant chunk of this money – some £1
billion – has been set aside for the extension of the Northern Line to
Battersea. Why? Is such an extension worth the money? How could it possibly
merit such a massive investment? Could this money not be better used to improve
rail services in the regions away from the capital, where rolling stock is
often overcrowded and lines closed by Beeching could be usefully reinstated,
easing congestion on the roads and assisting local economies?
The 11.5 mile link between Skipton (North Yorkshire) and
Colne (Lancashire) would link the Aire Valley and Yorkshire to East Lancashire,
Manchester, Preston and beyond. Although under increasing threat, the
trackbed is essentially intact and the railway could be restored at a
relatively low cost: any further incursion would destroy a resource of national
value and would be contrary to government policies.
Too much of our investment is focused upon London. We need
to direct more of our infrastructure investment away from the capital with a
view to assisting an economic kickstart in our regions. We, after all, were
left with the multi-billion pound bill of paying for the construction of the
Olympic complex in Stratford that most of us will never see and never benefit
from. In general, London sucks in too much from the rest of the country, and a
considerable part of its population isn’t even English. The £1 billion
earmarked for the extension of the Northern Line should be taken away, and
redirected to fresh regional rail initiatives instead.
Conservative MP Richard Bacon is a man who evidently knows
his own mind, and is a backbencher who would appear from his record to act in accord with his beliefs rather than with a view to furthering his career in the
parliamentary Conservative Party. Thus, he was in March 2003 one of only 15
Conservative MPs to vote against the Iraq War; in April 2006 he helped to
precipitate the ejection of the then Home Secretary Charles Clarke from office
following questions he fielded relating to what happened to released prisoners
who happened to be failed asylum seekers, and he has for some time been
campaigning for the reform of food labelling so that companies cannot claim –
as they can at present – that meat produced abroad but packaged or processed in
the UK is ‘British’. However, his efforts with respect to labelling ought to go
further, for it would not seem that he has extended this principle to the
compulsory identification of meat from religiously slaughtered livestock –
halal and kosher – which constitutes a significant animal welfare issue.
Today, Bacon sought to bring about the repeal of Labour’s
Human Rights Act by introducing a 10-minute rule bill. His rationale for its
repeal rested upon his belief (and mine) that the manner in which it has been
employed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to interfere with British
law is “fundamentally undemocratic”. According to a BBC report he stated:
"A supranational court can
impose its will against ours and, in my view, this is fundamentally
undemocratic.
"Judges do not have access to
a tablet of stone not available to the rest of us that allow them better to
discern what our people need than we can possibly do as their elected, fallible,
corrigible representatives.
"There is no set of values so
universally agreed we can appeal to them as a useful final arbiter. In the end,
they will always be shown up as either uselessly vague or controversially
specific.
"In the end, questions of major
social policy - whether on abortion, or capital punishment, or the right to
bear firearms, or workers' rights - should be decided by elected
representatives, and not by unelected judges."
Bacon’s reasoning based upon the
principle of the law being responsive to and determined by the nation strikes
me as a fundamental one, for who after all, appoints the judges in Strasbourg?
To whom are they accountable? They, presumably, see themselves as akin to
Plato’s ‘Guardians’, but their authority, clearly, is in direct contradiction
to the principle of democracy and democratic accountability. If the ECHR
ostensibly portrays itself as the defender of ‘fundamental human rights’, does
its interference in national law not constitute a contradiction of the
democratic principle? Is the right to change our laws and to political
self-determination not then a ‘fundamental human right’? This seems to be the
ECHR’s view, and as such, it undermines its own credibility by taking such a
position.
Although Bacon managed to muster
the support of 72 MPs, unfortunately his bill was defeated, for 195 voted
against it. One of his leading opponents was Labour MP Thomas Docherty, who did
make the valid point that the authority of the ECHR in the UK arose not from
the act which he was seeking to repeal, but from our membership of the European
Convention on Human Rights. However, Docherty then went beyond any position to
which I would subscribe, by making the baseless assertion that to depart from
the Convention would somehow signal that we here in our country would condone
torture or deny our citizens’ right to life, thereby setting a negative
precedent for those living in countries struggling to obtain respect for
individual rights and liberties. By making these points, he appeared to imply
that the Convention was one of the few things restraining us from falling into
a state of arbitrary barbarism, which strikes me as tasteless hysteria.
To assert the primacy of national
law above the authority and decisions of any supranational court is not to deny
‘human rights’, but to affirm them, in the form of the recognition of the
concrete democratic rights of the nation and its constituent members. I find
torture abhorrent, and do not argue for our departure from the Convention so
that we may implement such a vile practice, or to deny our citizens their
‘right to life’, but to assert the democratic right of the nation to determine
its own fate. We need therefore to leave the European Convention on Human
Rights, as well as the European Union, for both departures would serve as
necessary preconditions for the foundation of meaningful democracy and the
revival of political participation in our country. Every nation deserves the
right to self-determination, and at present, this is something that we are
denied.
This evening, Channel 4 starts its series 'Alien Investigations' in which it examines a number of famous (amongst ufologists and cryptozoologists presumably, as I hadn't previously heard of them) cases involving the alleged discovery of 'aliens' here on our planet. Whereas advances in planetary science, biology and genetics suggest that our galaxy is likely to be teeming with life, at least of the primitive bacterial variety (it is rumoured that we me be receiving an announcement from NASA shortly regarding the discovery of signs of extant life on Mars thanks to the Curiosity mission), that is quite different to stating that we have been visited by creatures from another world. The latter cannot be ruled out of course, but the evidence to date is lacking. Whatever happens to be revealed in the programmes that comprise this series, they are ought to make for a few evenings' good entertainment, even if they do little other than shed a little more light upon the social, cultural and psychological aspects of the belief in alien visitation.
The clip below provides a flavour of the first episode.
Review of Part One
As anticipated, the programme
turned out to provide the best part of an hour’s engaging entertainment,
focusing as it did upon three alleged alien sightings, with two of them
furnishing specimens of the alleged aliens that could be subjected to
scientific examination of one sort or another. All three originated in the
Americas: the first from Metepec in Mexico; the second from the Cuzco region of
Peru, and the third from Montauk on Long Island in the USA.
Images of all three alleged aliens
looked intriguing, and it was the stories attached to the Metepec ‘alien’ that
proved to be of most interest. Eyewitnesses claimed that in May 2007 a ranch
hand was startled to discover the ‘alien’ captured in on of his rat traps
(which for all the world resembled a miniature early nineteenth-century
mantrap). In all, there were five witnesses who claimed to have seen it alive,
with the animal being described as about 19 inches long (the remains certainly
didn’t seem to be that large, so perhaps they meant to say centimetres) with a
hairless pink body and luminous eyes. It made a noise that nobody could
identify. The remains looked interesting, and a number of 3-D scans had failed
to ascertain what it was. Its spine bore some human characteristics and it
possessed humanlike hands, but no opposable thumbs (the thumbs were
incomplete). On the second night after its discovery, it was stated that the
creature was “drowned in acid”, which seems rather cruel. Drowning is bad
enough, but why also add to its distress by using acid? Another such ‘alien’
was said to have been sighted on the ranch eight days later.
Initial tests upon the Metepec
‘alien’ allegedly suggested that it may have possessed a ‘human mother’, and
the ranch owner where it was caught died two months after the event in a
freakish and explosive car accident. Conspiracy theorists attributed this to
alien revenge, whereas the more prosaic explanation centred upon a debt that he
owed to gangsters. In all, some six tests were conducted upon the Metepec
specimen, a number of them suggesting that its DNA was very close to that of
humans, and indeed it was, for the final test revealed it to be a marmoset.
Moreover, its skull matched that of a marmoset. Towards the end of the
documentary, Angel Nuñez revealed that he had faked the whole affair, using a
buffy tufted marmoset. Being a primate, it should therefore not come as a
surprise that its DNA was close to that of humans.
The Peruvian ‘alien’ was found at
an excavation on a mountain some 70 miles away from Machu Pichu amidst
‘fragments of meteorite’. The narrator noted the widespread belief amongst Peruvians
and traditional Inca culture that their origins lay in the stars. The mummy
that was discovered possessed a peculiarly elongated skull together with what
appeared to be adult teeth and yet an open fontanelle. A Peruvian Ufologist
named Dante Dios Tambini claimed to be convinced that it was an alien, and also
produced some alleged footage of a UFO (which looked as if it was simply the
product of pointing a handheld imaging device at the full Moon in daylight and
waving it about) and a picture of an alien (nothing more than a red blemish
atop a picture of a stone shack).
The narrator noted that skull
deformation of this sort had been practised in a number of cultures for at
least 9,000 years in Africa, including in Ancient Egypt. Closer to home, the
Huns too practised this type of skull deformation in the fifth century. The
remains of the Peruvian ‘alien’ were not submitted to testing, but according to
Dr Anna Williams, it appeared to be a deformed child of about the age of six,
judging by the state of its teeth. This seemed a far more likely explanation
than the artist’s impression of a large-eyed ‘grey’ (or ‘gray’ I suppose
Americans would term them) that was provided alongside the skull.
The third and final case was that
of the so-called Monatauk alien washed up on a Long Island beach in July 2008.
Once again, a number of conspiracy theories circulated, the most favoured being
that this (and two subsequent carcasses) were aliens, and another being that it
was the freakish product of US military experiments in labs on Plum Island that
from 1953 until 1969 conducted biological experiments focused upon the
poisoning of Soviet livestock presided over by an ex-Nazi scientist just to add
a little additional lurid colouration to the tale. Although the carcasses
looked odd, why anyone should have thought that they might be ‘aliens’ baffled
me. A number of zoologists concluded otherwise: partially decomposed racoons.
Not as exciting as an extraterrestrial, but a rather more convincing
explanation.
All in all, the programme
illustrated the public hunger for tales of alien visitation, a contemporary
phenomenon that could be said to parallel the mediaeval thirst for miracles and
visions of the Virgin Mary. It would seem that our own scientific age is giving
birth to its own set of folk beliefs, fuelled by a voracious media and the
general public’s desire for strange and fantastical tales.
Today the EDL held a demo in the village of Shotton Colliery
in County Durham. The protest was prompted by the decision of a locally
resident businessman named Kaiser Choudry to transform a closed pub into what
has been described as ‘a Muslim education centre’.
Given the name of the village, it will come as no surprise
to the reader that it grew up around the eponymous pit which was closed by the NCB in the early 1970s with the loss of around 800 jobs. The village has never
recovered from this swingeing economic blow, and the proposed ‘Muslim education
centre’, which was once the Melrose Arms, is but one of eight former local pubs
that have now been shut. Clearly, what Shotton Colliery requires is economic
investment and job opportunities, not such a pointless entity as a ‘Muslim
education centre’.
The pointlessness and unwelcome nature of such an intrusion
into the life of an English village was overlooked by the Hartlepool Mail,
which naturally chose to cover the story from a pro-Muslim perspective under
the heading of ‘Muslims fear EDL demo’. Apparently, the village is home to five
or six Muslim families. Presumably they are all familiar with Islam, so why
would Shotton Colliery require a ‘Muslim education centre’? Obviously, it does
not, and is simply intended as a base for Islamic proselytisation – dawa –
amongst the resident English population. There is nothing favourable that can
be said either about such an intent or this specific move, so the EDL were
certainly right to demonstrate in this instance, for such a centre can bring
good to nobody. The less that Islamic doctrine is preached and spread in our
country, so much the better for all.
Residents of the village should be aware that Easington MP
Grahame Morris has sided with the proponents of the Muslim propaganda centre.
At the very least, those who object to its presence should write to him and
complain about his stance, asking him directly what benefit he thinks such a
proselytising mission centre could possibly confer upon the area and the lives
of local residents. There is nothing positive in Islamic doctrine that cannot
be found in any other faith or general system of ethical conduct, but there is
much in it that is inherently negative and inimical to the public good. We do
not need more Islam in Britain, but less of it. We should not grant planning
permission for Muslim mission centres. It would be better if the former Melrose
Arms were to be bulldozed.
As for the turnout at the demo today, there has been scant
information, although one opponent of the EDL, a self-styled ‘anti-fascist’
claimed in a tweet that some 200 EDL turned up in Shotton. On the other side of
the divide, someone named Peter Sloan asserted that there were between 500 and 600 EDL and locals demonstrating against the proposed Muslim centre. From the
picture of the demo below, it is impossible to estimate numbers, as it only
shows part of the crowd. If you were in Shotton today, what were your
impressions of the protest? Were you for it, or against it? What happened? Feel
free to leave comments below, because the press will not report it in an
objective fashion. A poll has been added to the blog column on the right where you can make clear your opinion on Shotton's proposed 'Muslim education centre'. Multiple answers can be submitted, and the poll will close on 21 December. It will be interesting to see what readers think.
UPDATE:
On 2 December the Sunday Sun reported that two men were
arrested at the demo ‘for breach of bail conditions’ and cited a police
estimate of the number of EDL present as 200. However, it is not clear as to
whether or not this figure also included locals who turned out to protest
against the proposed ‘Muslim education centre’. The article also noted that
Durham County Council has already ‘received a 102-signature petition and 13
letters against the conversion.’ Clearly, much more opposition will need to be effectively
marshalled to put an end to this plan for the former Melrose Arms. According to the Hartlepool Mail, which decided to describe the demonstrators as 'far-right extremists' in its Sunday edition, Durham County Council has already approved plans for the centre to go ahead. Are you a local resident who opposes this centre? If so, how do you feel about being labelled a 'far-right extremist'?
A report that appeared in the Sunderland Echoon 3 December confirmed (as mentioned by a commenter below) that a woman wearing a niqab threw a bag of what appeared to be 'dog excrement' at the protesters, but the police have stated that it 'contained mud'. Her action cannot be described as being within the bounds of legitimate objection to the protest and was unnecessarily provocative. Nonetheless, she was only 'ushered away' and did not, so far as can be deduced from the report, receive a police caution. Although the protest itself is said to have been generally peaceful, it is stated that a bottle was thrown at the police (which fool did that?) and a number of fireworks were let off. It claimed that the demonstrators numbered about 200.
EDL Demonstrators in Shotton Colliery (Saturday 1 December 2012)
John Humphrys this morning presided over a mini-debate on
the Today Programme about UKIP’s success on Thursday, observing that the
party’s good showing in the three by-elections could be read as indicative of
the disenchanted mood of a section of the electorate which is looking for a
‘new party’. In the case of UKIP however, the panel (whom it must be said were
not sympathetic towards UKIP), suggested that voters had chosen them because
they represented the ‘none of the above’ option, fulfilling a role akin to that
once played by the now highly unpopular Liberal Democrats. The suggestion
therefore, was that the vote for UKIP was largely negative, rather than
positive.
One panellist stated that UKIP supporters tend to be much
more concerned about the state of the economy than average, whilst another
claimed that despite its anti-EU focus, 49% of UKIP supporters named
immigration as their primary concern. However, what they did not go on to note
is the implicit fragility of UKIP’s support, for its globalist Thatcherite
economic approach would not assist our economic recovery, and with respect to
immigration, the party is only concerned about European immigration. It never
talks about restricting immigration from Asia and Africa. It would therefore
seem safe to draw the conclusion that the bulk of UKIP’s supporters would
prefer to vote for a new party committed to leaving the EU which also followed
a non-globalist and non-Thatcherite economic policy, and was committed to
slashing immigration from everywhere around the globe.
John Humphrys has acknowledged that a significant section of
the electorate desires a new party. Some, at least for now, have decided to
invest their support in UKIP. It is of course the wrong choice, but the
positive alternative option has yet to be created. We must provide a positive
and credible alternative. Upon this score, it is at least encouraging that UKIP
is now being described as a ‘mainstream party’ by prominent political and media
figures, rather than being misrepresented as ‘racist’ simply for raising the
suggestion that mass immigration ought to be curtailed. There have certainly
been some figures in a number of the smaller parties who would merit this
appellation, but it is time that those who routinely abuse the words ‘racist’
and ‘racism’ in order to delegitimise any position on immigration other than
that in favour of open borders, were ignored. They have cried wolf for too
long, and as anyone in possession of their senses knows, there are no wolves in
Britain today, other than those kept in zoos and safari parks.
