UAF Protest Against EDL Demo in Luton: the Unsavoury Truth

The inappropriately named trades-union funded body ‘Unite Against Fascism’ (UAF) is organising a national effort to counter what is being billed as the English Defence League’s (EDL) biggest yet demonstration against the Islamisation of the UK tomorrow in Luton. From as far afield as Edinburgh and Glasgow the Trotskyite-led UAF organisation is calling upon what it describes as ‘antiracists and antifascists across the country to mobilise against the English Defence League in Luton on Saturday 5 February.’ In pursuit of this objective it is organising numerous coaches for protesters, with Scottish UAF supporters leaving this evening because of the long distances involved.

Amongst the hardcore leftists who enjoy turning up for such festivals of self-created mayhem will be a number of gullible trade unionists and students who will not be aware of the modus operandi of UAF and its masters – the Socialist Workers’ Party (SWP) – a Trotskyite party that seeks to foment ‘class war’ through the patronage of a surrogate working class in the form of the predominantly immigrant-descended Muslim population which it sees as particularly ripe for violent mobilisation. Although UAF poses as a ‘peaceful’ organisation/movement, the clenched fist emblem of the SWP belies the reality of its violent intent; after all, two of the leading lights of UAF – Martin Smith and Weyman Bennett – are SWP Central Committee members.

Weyman Bennett was arrested at a UAF counterdemonstration against the EDL in Bolton on 20 March 2010. The arrest was for ‘suspicion of conspiracy to commit violent disorder.’ Of the 74 arrests that took place that day, 55 were of UAF demonstrators, thus far outweighing the number of EDL supporters detained. SWP National Secretary Martin Smith was convicted of assaulting a police officer in an anti-BNP demo at the time of Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time in September 2009. Both the SWP and UAF believe in a ‘no platform’ policy for those whom they deem to be beyond the pale of acceptability, amongst whom they include the EDL and BNP, both of which they brand ‘racist’, along with the recently formed British Freedom Party.

The links between the Trotskyite Left (whether the UAF, the SWP or the ‘Respect’ Party) and Islamism are clear to see. In June 2010 the One Law for All (OLFA) anti-Shariah campaign held a demonstration in Downing Street, whilst that same day former Respect MP George Galloway used rhetoric to whip up hatred amongst a mainly Muslim crowd in East London that had turned up to protest against the EDL. After Galloway had finished, a contingent of Muslim UAF headed off to Westminster where they joined with the Islamist group Muslims Against Crusades with cries of ‘Allahu-akbar!’ in a show of united rage against OLFA (click here for video footage).

Trotskyism and Islamism have come to an accommodation in the UK because each thinks it can use the other to forward its own agenda. Both believe in the transformative power of violence and detest free speech and free thought, and each is anti-nationalist in its own distinctive way. With the fortunes of the BNP on the wane, those who make a living from ‘anti-racism’ need a new target, and for them the EDL will serve as good a target as any for the time being. However, the words ‘racism’, ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘fascist’ and ‘Nazi’ are all simply part of the Trotskyite toolkit deployed to unleash irrational hatred upon those stigmatised by these epithets, thereby keeping members of the movement/party in a state of perpetual and readily manipulated mobilisation. Throughout history Communists of various hues have used terms such as 'kulak', 'bourgeois', 'reactionary', 'capitalist running dog', 'wrecker', etc to stigmatise, dehumanise and destroy their opponents' reputations and lives. UAF continue in that ignoble tradition.

Since its early days the EDL has won the support of a number Sikhs and West Indians amongst others, and has also made clear the centrality of defending the rights of women and homosexuals, which is a reality that clearly rebuts the allegations of UAF about the EDL’s position. From the outset, it has declared itself to be a popular protest movement against ‘radical Islam’ and ‘Islamisation’. Islam is an ideology and there are of course considerable numbers of indigenous Muslim converts in the UK. Islam has no colour. Islam is not a ‘race’. Don’t believe in the lies peddled by UAF such as ‘The EDL, [is] a violent racist organisation with links to the British National Party and other fascist groups’. Remember: Stalin called the brave Polish patriots who rose up against the Nazi occupiers in the Warsaw Rising of 1944 ‘fascists’ and let the Nazis wipe them out before crossing the Vistula and imposing Communism. Men such as Smith and Bennett, although Trotskyites rather than Stalinists, are cast in the same mould.

A Quiz for Muslims

1) Do you believe that Mohammed was the ‘Prophet’?

2) Do you believe that his life was an example to all of humankind for all time?

3) Do you believe that Mohammed should not be criticised?

4) By definition, do good Muslims insult the ‘honour’ of the ‘Prophet Mohammed'?

5) If a Muslim spreads false stories about ‘the Prophet Mohammed’, would you consider them a Muslim?

6) If your answer to question 4 is ‘no’, then are there any people who call themselves Muslims whom you consider routinely insult his ‘honour’, and if so, in what way?

7) If false stories are spread about ‘the Prophet Mohammed’, does his marriage to Aisha fall into this category?

8) Muslim tradition holds that Mohammed married Aisha at the age of six (some say seven) and consummated the marriage at the age of nine. Logic thus dictates that if you are a Muslim you must believe that this tradition is correct. As you think that ‘the Prophet Mohammed’ is the paragon of humanity for all time and beyond criticism, an example to all men everywhere, then this facet of his behaviour – paedophilia – you must therefore hold not only to be acceptable, but a good thing. Do you think that Mohammed's consummation of his 'marriage' to Aisha at the age of nine was a morally good thing?

9) Do you now understand why we non-Muslims in England see a specific cultural problem with some of your men (a minority, but a nasty one) operating in a co-ordinated fashion to groom and sexually abuse our underage girls? It possesses dark roots in Islamic tradition, and it is incumbent upon you to tear up those roots and burn them. The video exchange on this subject below is well worth watching, and despite being subtitled in French, is conducted in English.

EDL's Tommy Robinson (Stephen Lennon) in Newsnight Interview

“Luton will be the biggest test yet of what the EDL has become” (Newsnight Reporter).

In advance of this Saturday's EDL demo in Luton Tommy Robinson (real name Stephen Lennon) the founder of the protest group was invited into the Newsnight studio for a grilling by Jeremy Paxman. This slot had to wait until after analysis of the day's events in Egypt and what significance they may have for the democratic prospects for the Arab world. Thus, in the opening shots of the programme an understandably nervous Robinson was pictured awaiting his ordeal. Unsurprisingly, Paxman introduced him by drawing attention to the significant expense which would be incurred by this Saturday's demonstration.

Before the interview proceeded, Newsnight ran a report on the EDL which it was said had been worked on by a BBC journalist over the past six months whilst she was “getting to know members of the EDL”. She noted the large number of demonstrations that it has held over the past two years since its inception in Luton in response to the barracking of members of the Royal Anglian Regiment by a group of Islamists. Although neither the Muslim Defence League (MDL) nor UAF were named, she mentioned that groups had formed in opposition to the EDL. This weekend’s demo was billed as being likely to be biggest yet, which has caused some surprise to the police and media who did not expect the EDL to last for such a length of time. The fact that neither predicted this suggests to me a very real and deep lack of understanding of the issues that have fed into the rise of the EDL. This certainly became evident when Paxman got underway with his interview.

Starting with a precis of Robinson's/Lennon's background, the 28 year old was described as“Luton born and bred”. He was pictured at his business (a tanning salon) donning a bullet-proof vest before venturing out onto the streets of Luton. The reporter questioned the need for such apparel, evidently viewing it as a piece of unnecessary posturing, but Robinson claimed that both his house and business had been attacked by Muslims and that his personal security was under real threat.

Not only does Luton possess links to the intercepted Fertiliser Bomb Plot and the 7/7 bombings, but since the EDL came into being another Luton resident Muslim became a suicide bomber and blew himself up in Stockholm. Moving on, the report then drew attention to the increasing pressure being placed upon police forces by EDL demos (although no emphasis was placed upon the expense incurred in policing the frequently violent UAF counter-demonstrations).

In an effort to tap into the motivations of ordinary EDL members and supporters, the reporter visited a Birmingham pub to which Robinson had been invited to address members of a newly-formed division.
Women, children and non-white members were also present, and understandably some of those in attendance were uncomfortable with the BBC cameras. Robinson made clear throughout that he had no problem with West Indian, Sikh or Hindu youth; the problem was specifically with doctrinaire Muslims (although he did not use this term which could have helped him out in his sparring with Paxman).

The EDL is a genuine working-class protest movement that has grown out of the frustrations of ordinary people tired of being ignored by members of the political and media elites who insist on stigmatising them as 'bigots' and 'racists' at every opportunity, even though they are not. We often hear politicians moaning that working class people are disengaged from politics, and yet when they do form there own movement as in the case of the EDL, they are turned upon by these very same individuals. Mainstream politicians have little relevance to the lives of ordinary English working class people and possess no real understanding of their lives and their problems. Little wonder, as the more affluent in our society (such as Paxman) have the money to buy themselves out of undesirable neighbourhoods. If they think that certain areas of Luton, Burnley, Tower Hamlets, Bradford and Dewsbury are so marvellously culturally 'vibrant' and 'enriched', why is it that they don't flock to live in these places? We know the real reasons why.

Returning to the Newsnight report, one woman interviewee drew attention to the exceedingly rapid growth of the Muslim population in her locality and the fact that non-Muslim children were getting picked on at school. Of course, the privileged middle-class interviewer (and by middle class I'm not referring to a humble office worker, but someone sheltered from the unsavoury aspects of contemporary life by a fat BBC salary) could not get her head around such a perspective, for she did not have a clue what it must be like to live in such a situation.

Instead of fading into oblivion, the EDL has grown in strength and has even, the report noted, acquired an international dimension, sending delegates to the anti-Ground Zero Mosque Rally in New York and to Amsterdam to support Geert Wilders. Guramit Singh was also interviewed, and quite rightly noted that  “Islam [as a doctrine] is disgusting”. The EDL Nottingham Deputy Leader declared that he was against what was in the Qur’an, i.e. the doctrine, and not against Muslims.

Tommy Robinson Interviewed
As expected, Paxman treated Robinson in a condescending manner, swooping down from his sheltered eyrie with claws extended. The EDL founder outlined that he and the EDL stood against Shariah Law and Islamism from which many of our towns and cities are under threat. He declared it to be incompatible with Western democracy and to be against the rights of women, homosexuals and infidels. Islamisation is a real and ongoing process. Paxman did not understand. He attempted to pour scorn on Robinson's position and ridiculed the notion that England was 'under threat' from Shariah Law or Islamisation. Robinson countered by illustrating that Islamisation was concentrated in those areas where Muslims constituted the demographic majority.

Unfortunately, there was no time to touch upon the questions of immigration and differential birth rates, but in truth, Paxman would have been equally dismissive of those arguments, as his bloated bank account will forever protect him from the negative consequences of such processes. Paxman is as out of touch with the reality of the lives of ordinary English folk living next to Muslim enclaves as Mubarak is with the mood of the Egyptian demonstrators. Neither of them understand that things have changed. The fact that Paxman resides in a bubble was vigorously underscored by Robinson.

“Could a Muslim join the English Defence League?” fires off Paxman. “Of course they could, yeah”, replies Robinson.

Paxman inferred that Robinson had never read the Qur'an, but from Paxman's verbal and facial expressions of incredulity (a prime piece of gurning) in response to Robinson's concurrence that the contents of the Qur'an were vile, it's evident that Paxman most certainly is unacquainted with anything but a bowldlerised qur'anic primer.

The problem of twenty years of Muslim pimping gangs and paedophilia covered up and not dealt with because of political correctness and fear of offending the Muslim 'community' led to more gurning from Paxman and childish assertions that "white men do that too!" Jeremy old boy, you really don't understand do you? One thing that a Cambridge education (good as it is) will never provide you with is an insight into the lived experience of working class people in areas of our town and cities that you'd never dream of spending five minutes in out of choice, unless you were there on a journalistic assignment.

The interview drew towards its close: “Aren’t you worried by what you’ve set off?” asked Paxman.

“Ours is a righteous cause” replied Robinson.

Make your own mind up. I'm not a righteous man, but I do know which of the two aforementioned men know about the real problems engendered by the implanting of doctrinaire Islam in our country, and in this instance it is the man with knowledge born of experience rather than of educated wishful thinking who has the better measure of this matter. Being an educated man, perhaps Mr Paxman ought to take note of the Oxford Dictionary definition of a ‘bigot’: noun – ‘a person who is bigoted’: bigoted (adjective) – ‘obstinately convinced of the superiority of one’s own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions’. Doesn’t sound a bit like Jeremy, does it? Ahem!

Imam Mohammed Hanif Khan sentenced for Paedophilia and Rape

This looks like a sorry companion piece to the many stories of child abuse by Catholic priests that have come to light in recent years. According to a Press Association report, an imam from Stoke-on-Trent named Mohammed Hanif Khan has been found guilty of 'two counts of rape' and 'sexual activity with a child'. These cases of abuse were said to have taken place whilst he was an imam in Stoke in 2009. No verdict was reached on five further cases.

Scandalously, Khan sought to defend himself, one report stating that:

he had a close relationship with the youngsters because he tried to help them with their unruly behaviour, adding that he would often be more lenient on the boys if they were late or did not turn up for classes at the mosque because he was aware that they had issues at home.

Whatever these 'issues' were, they surely pale in comparison to what Khan inflicted upon them. Khan, who had received training as an imam in a range of countries including Pakistan, Egypt, India, Syria and Cyprus, is reported to have remained dispassionate as the verdict was passed.

Just a thought, but might not Lord Ahmed come up with some spurious justification in defence of Khan as he has done on behalf of Muslim paedophiles grooming and systematically abusing English girls as reported recently?

Mubarak's Speech to the Egyptian People: a Plea for 7 Months in Office

Mubarak has addressed the Egyptian people this evening, claiming that "violence and looting" had been generated by political forces taking advantage of the recent protests. He claimed to have "been moved" by the pain experienced by Egyptians, and offered the people a choice between "stability" and "chaos" whilst acknowledging a "new reality". His new government would have new priorities which would be responsive to the demands of young people, and he claimed that he was opening a dialogue with all new political parties over constitutional reform in order "to restore calm".

However, he castigated some unnamed political forces for refusing to enter into dialogue and appealed to "the people" to recognise the difficult conditions under which he came to the presidency. He claimed that he "would not betray what you have entrusted to me" (i.e. "calm and stability") and stated that he would oversee a transition, ensuring that the country remains stable, claiming that he had not intended to stand again for the presidency.

Mubarak stated that he would devote his remaining months in office to ensuring a peaceful transition and  requested Parliament to modify Article 67 of the Constitution so that a limit would henceforth be defined for the presidential term. He also called upon the police to protect the freedom of the people, and for the judiciary to investigate all corruption charges as well as "who was behind the looting and the violence" of the recent protests.

What will the protesters make of this speech? Will they be satisfied to allow Mubarak to retain the reins of power until September this year? I doubt it. Furthermore, could not Mubarak's reference to prosecuting those whom he deemed to be "behind the looting and the violence" be used as a pretext for the arrest of many innocent protesters?

Hosni Mubarak to leave Office (but not yet)

Reports claim that Hosni Mubarak has announced that he will step down at the next election in September. What does this betoken for Egypt and its people? Are these reports true, or is this simply a political ruse on the part of this wily old dictator? Given the scale of today's demonstrations and the army's announcement that it will not fire on protesters, it seems that he has no option other than to leave office and that this statement is indeed genuine.

When he does eventually go, which one would assume ought to be soon, who will be left in charge? Will a caretaker administration allow sufficient time for a pluralist slate of candidates and political parties to contest the Egyptian elections, or will, as many have predicted, the Muslim Brotherhood simply step into the void and proffer itself as the Government of the people's choice? Egypt falling into the hands of Islamists would be very bad news for its people, particularly for its large Coptic minority, as well as for the wider world. Will Egypt choose the route of Eastern Europe in 1989, or of Iran in 1979? Hopefully the former, but that may be being overly optimistic.

England and Wales Police Crime Website Crashes

Have you managed to successfully visit http://www.police.uk/ today? I’ve not. Apparently, traffic has been so heavy that the servers have been unable to cope. According to a BBC report, it has been receiving up to five million hits per hour, which, it must be said is pretty high. It certainly bears testimony to the public’s interest in crime in their immediate neighbourhood. The crime-mapping website covers England and Wales but does not, so far as I am aware, include a facility to look into bank boardrooms.

Is it a good thing? I’m not so sure. For example, if you were a burglar might you not choose to use the site to identify streets which had not already been plundered? It could therefore make for an excellent burglar’s resource, which does seem to have been something of an oversight on the part of its designers.

Thilo Sarrazin’s Nine Truths about Muslim Immigration

In the following subtitled video Thilo Sarrazin honestly enumerates nine inconvenient truths about Muslim immigration and its negative impact upon German society and Western societies more generally. Strange, is it not, that a senior member of the German Social Democratic Party and respected Executive Board member of the Deutsche Bundesbank, was suddenly reclassified by critics as ‘far-right’, ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ as soon as he dared to outline the truth about the overwhelmingly negative impact of Muslim immigration on Germany’s society and economy in his book Deutschland schafft sich ab (Germany Abolishes Itself). His stance is honest, brave and instructive. He is none of the things that his critics accuse him of being, and his breaching of multiculturalist taboos led to the establishment of a new German party – Die Freiheit.  

His logical dissection of the problems engendered by mass Muslim immigration and multiculturalism in Germany should reach as wide an audience as possible.

One Law for All Seminar – Enemies not Allies

On 26 January the One Law for All campaign hosted a debate at Conway Hall in London. Its provocative title ‘Enemies not Allies’ made it clear from the outset that one of the objectives of the organiser – Worker Communist Party of Iran Central Committee member Maryam Namazie – was to seek to place beyond the pale elements of the counterjihad movement such as the English Defence League (EDL) and Stop the Islamisation of Europe (SIOE). However, one of the speakers invited onto the panel was the conservative (small 'c' rather than party affiliated) commentator Douglas Murray.

Unlike Namazie, Murray approached the theme of discussion with a refreshing lack of prejudice, and instead of damning the EDL and portraying it and its supporters in the blackest of possible colours, he rightly drew attention to the irrationality and deliberate nature of leftist ‘no platform’ policies, as well as the Left’s tendency to force opponents and rivals into predetermined ideological boxes without looking at what they actually believe in and how they behave. I have already covered the differences in orientation and approach of the various movements and parties that take a counterjihad stance in a previous article - England: an Anatomy of the Counterjihad and Lessons from France – as well as some of the more notable demonstrations by One Law for All. Like Murray, I am in favour of collaboration irrespective of ideological differences.

What emerges in the initial half of the first of the following videos is Murray’s spirited advocacy of working with the EDL (he speaks until approximately 6:40). In the second video, he robustly demolishes the refrain so commonly heard that ‘Islam is a religion of peace.’ Namazie however appears to be a politician cast in the old Stalinist mould of the type who branded Polish patriots 'fascists' because they didn’t want their country overrun by the Soviets. The One Law for All campaign may have a noble goal in fighting against Sharia, but Namazie’s willingness to condemn the EDL and SIOE as ‘far-right’ and ‘racist’ in an offhand fashion demonstrates her unappealing Marxist-Leninist credentials.

Lord Ahmed defends predatory Muslim Paedophiles

The Mail has today run an extraordinary story in which Labour ‘Lord’ Ahmed (another fake peer in the mould of bogus ‘Baroness’ Warsi) has spoken up in defence of predatory Pakistani paedophiles. Instead of blaming these despicable men for their repellent crimes, he instead has the gall to blame white English society, our women in particular, for the perpetration of these misdeeds. The pro-paedophile peer was speaking in response to the recent reporting of the phenomenon of on-street underage grooming of young English girls which has been conducted almost exclusively by Muslims, predominantly Pakistanis.

It is obvious to anyone who knows about Islam that such behaviour is not only sanctioned by the religion, but openly encouraged by the example of its founder. How many times have you heard that Mohammed was the perfect man and should never under any circumstances be criticised? How often have you heard it said that Muslims should seek to emulate his life and example? Well, given that Mohammed himself was a violent predatory paedophile who deliberately targeted unbelievers for his murderous crimes, why ought we to be surprised when those who see this individual as the ‘perfect man’ hold our children in contempt and abuse them for their debased sexual gratification? They are doing nothing more than being ‘good’ Muslims in the mould of Mohammed. Thankfully of course, many Muslims owing to their innate human decency choose not to follow the example of this pariah prophet, and I am not in any way seeking to impugn their good characters.

The pro-paedophile peer justified the actions of the Muslim child rapists with reference to the fact that a number of them had been forced into unhappy first-cousin marriages, but then he adds:

‘But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.’

He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women.

‘An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,’ the peer added.

So Ahmed, are you implying that our women should simply allow themselves to be sexually available to service your emotionally damaged co-religionists? You are are effectively demanding that our women give themselves up as whores to be abused whenever the lusts of male members of your soi-disant ‘community’ move them to search out an object of gratification. Your attitude is self-serving and repellent.

I am sure that with Ahmed and Warsi sat in the House of Lords our women and girls will be feeling very ‘safe’, knowing that they are to blame for the rapes, pimping and drug addiction that are forced upon them by Pakistani Muslim gangs in so many of our towns and cities. Derby, Keighley, Rotherham, Rochdale: all have witnessed this pattern of abuse. In how many other locations is this sad story played out? Well Sayeeda, thanks for accusing us all of Islamophobia. Remember, a phobia is an irrational fear. What is irrational about fearing men who follow a creed that urges them to systematically sexually abuse those who do not follow their faith?

If you have daughters and live in an area near to a Muslim population, my advice to you would be to ensure that they know from an early age that they should as a precaution keep away from Muslim males, and that they are aware of the historical character and crimes of Mohammed. Protect your children from predation, because I can assure you that our educational system is filling their heads with a bowldlerised vision of Islam which leaves them naively vulnerable.

Pat Condell blasts Suppression of Free Speech Across Europe

Watch Pat in his latest video letting off a salvo against politicians across Europe for betraying our liberties and values by facilitating Islamic mass immigration and then limiting our freedom of expression so as not to offend aggressive members of this imported minority. Shamefully, the President of the Free Speech Society Lars Herdegaard is on trial in Denmark for highlighting the disproportionate number of rapes committed by Muslim males in that country, bringing to mind the recent story in England demonstrating the predominance of Pakistani Muslim males in the on-street grooming and systematic sexual abuse of underage ethnic English girls. Alas, not only is Herdegaard on trial for speaking out against the unsavoury manifestations of Islam in European societies, but individuals are also currently being tried in Austria and Holland for daring to bring this unpalatable reality to the attention of the public.

Will Mubarak go, will Mubarak stay? Should he, or shouldn’t he?

Hosni Mubarak’s address to the Egyptian people demonstrates that he has no intention of relinquishing his personal grip on power, although he has been quite willing to sacrifice his government. Given that protesters have made it clear that it is Mubarak himself as well as the regime that he has presided over that they wish to see removed, this move will not pacify the street.

How then, can Mubarak maintain his position? Much depends upon the loyalty of the Egyptian military and police forces. If they stand by Mubarak and he is willing to use unrestrained force, there is a chance that this current wave of protest could be broken. In the longer term however, the problems that underpin this mass discontent will only grow worse, and the likelihood of a bloodier denouement will increase. Unlike the Chinese Communist Party in the wake of Tiananmen Square, Mubarak will not be able to buy off discontent through the promise of a bright economic future, for Egypt is not enjoying China's double-digit economic growth. Instead it is faced with overpopulation, spiralling food prices and a water shortage. Taking into consideration the fact that the US has indicated that its support for Mubarak is wavering and conditional upon political reform and concessions to the protesters, Mubarak’s continuation in office for anything but a brief period seems unlikely.

By definition, the media relish events such as those that are unfolding in Egypt, for they provide good copy and thereby help attract readers, listeners and viewers. As there is also a general cultural tendency in our media to see ‘change’ in a positive light, it is prone to equating large-scale popular protest with ‘progress’, irrespective of the demands that the protesters may be articulating (a notable exception being media treatment of the EDL). The BBC talking heads appear to be especially susceptible to this line of reporting, seeing in any popular protest movement the values that they unconsciously (or at times, perhaps consciously) project onto it, i.e. those of a globalist, universalist liberalism. So it has been with respect to its treatment of events in Egypt, where it has striven to emphasise the role of the internet, Facebook and non-politically affiliated youth in the genesis of this outbreak of popular discontent.

There is of course a much older and well-established form of political organisation and opposition in Egypt which most certainly does not hold views and values which chime with liberalism, although it is globalist and universalist in aspiration: the Muslim Brotherhood. Founded in 1928, this organisation has been Islamist since its inception, and through its work with the Egyptian poor has established a broad base of support amongst sections of the population and has carved out a role for itself larger than that of a conventional political party. The BBC has been at great pains to emphasise that the Muslim Brotherhood is not at the forefront of the current protests, and that instead web-savvy, educated middle-class youth are leading the way. However, the chants of “Allahu akbar” by protesters leaving the mosque after Friday prayers indicate that far from all of those taking to the streets are liberal, secular democrats.

When Mubarak does fall, who or what will take over? There has been some speculation that the military might step into the void for at least a transitional period, but after that, what? If such a relatively peaceful transition can take place, there may then be elections in which the best-organised parties would presumably garner most of the seats. Do the web-savvy, middle-class youth possess the organisational skills, structures and coherent political programme(s) necessary to appeal to most Egyptians? I do not profess to know, but I suspect that as in any country they are a highly disparate bunch with widely differing views as to how Egypt should be governed and the values that it should embrace. The Muslim Brotherhood will be waiting with its well-organised network of activists and supporters and will do well whatever new system comes into play.

If the Muslim Brotherhood were to come to power either as a majority party or in coalition with another Islamist party, this would have highly negative implications for the future of Egypt and its people. The first to suffer under such an administration would be the Coptic Christian community, which estimates suggest as being anywhere between 5 and 15 million strong. Ever since Islam's arrival in Egypt, the Copts have been subject to discrimination and violence in an attempt to get them to convert, and the policies of an Islamist administration would surely continue in this tradition. Naturally, by definition a Muslim Brotherhood government would also be very bad news for women, homosexuals and freethinkers. Given Islam’s abhorrence of representational sculpture and art, Egypt’s great inheritance of art from its pharaonic and classical past would be under as much threat as the Bamiyan Buddhas. Vandalism against this priceless heritage would be a huge tragedy for the Egyptian people and civilisation more generally.

The geopolitical implications of Egypt going Islamist would also be considerable. As the most populous country in the Arab world which sits astride the Suez Canal, this would not bode well for Western interests. Events in Tunisia appear to have played a role in triggering protest in Egypt, and protest has also spread to Jordan. One can only hope that the populations of Egypt and Jordan look at the bloodshed and horror that Islamism has brought to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and recoil from the option of propelling Islamists to power. Whilst the BBC may be erring on the side of portraying these nascent revolutions as an Arab equivalent of 1989, we may in fact be witnessing an Arab version of 1979. Let us hope for the sake of all concerned that it proves to be the former rather than the latter, but on this score I am not optimistic.

UPDATE: Click here for summary of Mubarak's announcement to stand down.