Let the English Defence League March

Bill Rees

Alex, can you clarify something for me?
Are the EDL "fools and goons" because they oppose a range of Islamic cultural and religious practices, presumably thinking that they are incompatible with English (or British) culture as it has evolved over centuries? In that case I am a fool and a goon myself.
Or are they "fools and goons" only because they want to march in support of those views?
Or are they only "fools and goons" because they will, in your view, provoke violence by marching in support of those views? In other words, if they knew they could march without provoking violence, they then wouldn't be "fools and goons".
I think you need to be a little more specific about what is foolish and goonish.

cmp

Was wondering that myself Bill.

Alex, could you explain?

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

All the EDL have to do is dress themselves in burkahs, then the police will bang their heads on the pavements as ass in the air they allow them to pass.

Archibald

What do the EDL stand for? Fraser attacked them recently, and you do so now, I'm willing to believe that their views may well be heinous as described by Fraser, but if both you and he bang on about them and bang on about giving them the oxygen of publicity, without actually revealing and dismantling their views/policies, then you may as well stand on the side of those who are for banning. Saying 'let the bogey men march' without revealing any of their views surely amounts to the same thing, or are you and Fraser just being lazy and can't be bothered forming any arguments against them?
You and/or Fraser should stand by your words, list their views and systematically dismantle them one by one. Then come back to us. That's what freedom of speech is about - not calling them names and hoping noone will question. I'm pretty sure when Mill wrote 'On Liberty' this wasn't what he had in mind. Let's get it all out in the open, please, that's what I read the Speccy for.

ndm

The real problem with the EDL is not a few dolts and fools marching - it is the prize of a high place in the media given to those who lay the intellectual groundwork for their paranoia and bigotry.

Peter

It seems that any party or group that opposes the promotion of the Islamic practices being forced on certain parts of Britain are demonised by the press. All teh EDL want to do is expose the truth why do the media becoe selective on what truth shall be heard that is not your role. In this case the press are supporting militant islamists.

Rhoda Klapp

The best thing to do if the morlocks think they have a grievance is to ingnore it. Works every time.

Boris71w

The Right banning the views of the Left is wrong and the Left banning the views of the Right is wrong. Banning the EDL is no different from banning Union members marching against the cuts. What is definitely wrong is that the Liberal Fascists will 'attack' the EDL march to defend rights and democracy by denying them to people with different views than Liberal Fascists and the government and police believing it right to ban the marchers rather than come down heavy on the 'righteous' law breakers who will cause trouble

Nick Kaplan

Well said Archibald.

I keep hearing that the EDL is a racist organisation but, while I'm perfectly willing to believe that they are, I'm yet to hear a single person provide any evidence for the claim.

The whole 'EDL are racists' thing seems to have become a bit of a meme, i.e. an idea accepted, repeated and passed on without any critical thought whatsoever. Consequently everyone seems to believe the EDL are racist (which for all I know they are), but nobody seems to have the faintest idea why they think it other than that they heard someone else say it.

Despite having heard much talk about the EDL I still have no idea what they stand for or what they want and thus I really don't know what their members have done to warrant being called racist. I would appreciate if someone (anyone) could tell me anything about them so I have some basis (other than hearsay) to decide whether in fact they are racist or not!

Baron

Alex ventures into a dangerous territory: “…contrasting the authorities willingness to limit their activity (EDL’s) with the tolerance shown to other disreputable organization”.

What other disreputable organization would that be then?

James de la Mare

"That the EDL wants to stir up trouble is not in doubt" says Mr Massie. And he goes on to suggest they want to be seen as victims.

Over the past fifty years that I've watched demos. marches and even disorder, two things have been consistently clear. And I don't need Mr Massie to spell out for me, as an educated English person, his half-baked theories on the EDL.

Firstly, it is always clear that whenever a right leaning group is active, the establishment becomes paranoid. Perhaps it was the War that did it, perhaps they feel threatened - but there's always a lot of hostile talk about "banning" among the politicians and press, no matter that the group may be small and no danger whatsoever to the public.

Second, it is not, please note, Mr Massie, that the EDL want to be perceived as victims. We are ALL victims when our country, traditions, culture, education, language and the rest are subjected to damage or denigration by huge influxes of foreign influences.

Young people, like these journalists, politicians and police officers, have been conditioned for all their lives to regard the right as a menace and to attack it whenever and however possible, while a huge majority (I suspect) of the public broadly agree with much of what these rightish groups say and think. And thank God they do, because this nation has been almost hopelessly demoralised by decades of this hostility and misrepresentation of what is nothing more than normal patriotism.

I'd say "Let the EDL onto the streets ANYWHERE - immigrant areas or not - and see who causes the damage - them or the so-called 'anti-fascists' - in the traditional way we are supposed to enjoy a free society in Britain". And, Mr Massie, please have another think about this before you regale us with your nonsense again.

ndm

Awesome mission statement from the EDL. I particularly loved the hypocricy of the following:

-- Restaurants and fast food chains that do offer halal options should offer non-halal alternatives as well, in order to show respect for other people’s religions, customs, and possible concerns about animal welfare issues (surrounding ritual slaughter).

Axstane

I posted on the Martin Bright thread that I am uneasy about banning marches by the EDL whilst allowing so many other organisations to march under provocative circumstances.

The fact that they anti-Islamist makes no difference - Islamists were permitted an insulting march in Luton and Wootton Bassett. There is a great deal of understandable anti-Islamist sentiment in the UK. That is not anti-Muslim and the difference must be understood. Is it necessarily racist to oppose the views of a a group whose ideals are to subvert our laws and replace them with a set of their own? Are they marching to oppose Sikhs, Hindus, Egyptian Copts? Yet those are also people of another race.

I have never met anyone from the EDL and have no wish to but unless they become a proscribed organisation they should have a right to march where they wish.

OB

Why is that hypocritical ndm?

Archibald

PS, Alex I assume you mean black shirts, not black shorts? Or is the root of your dislike of the EDL the fact that their marches are attended by middle-aged men with tight black shorts and milk-white legs?
Incidentally, on Martin's blog I have set you, him and Fraser a challenge, I hope one of you takes it up.

ndm

Axstane writes:

- There is a great deal of understandable anti-Islamist sentiment in the UK. That is not anti-Muslim and the difference must be understood.

However, even the small piece of the EDL mission statement I quoted in a previous post is anti-Muslim not anti-Islamist. An organizion suggesting that a kosher butcher "should offer non-kosher alternatives" would quickly find itself deemed anti-Semitic.

Jez

Why does the EDL need to march?

The Tower Hamlets thing is like a match to kerosone.

The capital does not need this right now.

The main fears are that some of the younger EDL will blunder down the wrong way somewhere, maybe getting very badly injured (or worse)- or this will spark a massive riot (Ramadam is over on the 30th)

It is counterproductive and gives the establishment and the MSM yet more self righteous rhetoric to demonise and attack the communities the EDL is supposed to speaking up for; the white working class.

Fergus Pickering

Is not Alex's reference to the egregious Spode in P G Wodehouse?

Verity

Who cares when ramadam's over? What does it have to do with our nation and history? ramadan's their issue, not ours.

The EDL will "blunder down the wrong way"? As opposed to the islamics "blundering" down the correct way execracting our British war dead?

It was the forebears of the EDL who kept our country free for hundreds of years. The only two parties in Britain who love our own folk, and our history, and those who have joined us peacefully over the centuries, are the EDL mentality and the UKIP mentality.

I would never vote for one of the main British parties again.

ConservativeCabbie

ndm

Just out of interest (genuine enquiry), do you think an halal butcher should be made to offer non-halal options? That is the logical extension of a belief system that forces B&B owners to accomodate gay couples for example is it not?

Paul Weston

I know the EDL very well. I have visited them in Luton and heard the horror stories about life there as a non-Muslim. The police and the council appear to operate as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood. Luton is quite literally a British town under Islamic siege.

I suggest that if Mr Massie wishes to write a fair and balanced article, he should arrange a visit to Luton, talk to the senior leaders of the EDL and learn what is happening there. He may then understand what it is like to be white and working class in an area where Sharia is incrementally taking over.

Luton is just one of many areas where this is happening and it needs to be stopped, otherwise demographics suggest the entire country will be like Luton within 1-2 generations.

I genuinely fear we will see religious civil war in this country before 2030, aided and abetted by the likes of the middle class Alex Massie's who have no apparent conception of the expansionist aim of Islam, nor what it is like to be white and working class in Islamic areas.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

ConservativeCabbie
August 27th, 2011 7:29am
In answer to your question. No. Nobosy should be forced to do anything, sell anything or serve anybody in their business. This is called freedom, something the main parties in this country do not understand. How could they? They are crypto-marxists at the best and raving bolshies at the worst.

Archibald

NDM -
From about 2 minutes of web research:

In 2003, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (now committee), an independent advisory group, concluded that the way halal and kosher meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals and should be banned immediately. FAWC argued that cattle required up to two minutes to bleed to death when such means are employed. The Chairperson of FAWC at the time, Judy MacArthur Clark, added, "this is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous." Halal and kosher butchers deny that their method of killing animals is cruel and expressed anger over the FAWC recommendation.

In April 2008, the Food & Farming Minister stated that halal and kosher meat should be labeled when it is put on sale, so that members of the public can decide whether or not they want to buy food from animals that have been bled to death. He was quoted as saying, "I object to the method of slaughter ... my choice as a customer is that I would want to buy meat that has been looked after, and slaughtered in the most humane way possible." The RSPCA supported Lord Rooker's views.

Recently, some parents groups have been up in arms at halal becoming the only choice at some school meals, citing various reasons such as welfare concerns and choice.

The claim from at least one small animal welfare group/animal rights group is that the RSPCA have now joined the list of Agencies and Organisations backing off from confronting the Halal Food Authority’s use of 'illegal and cruel slaughter methods' (Scotland for Animals words), the implication from them being the RSPCA are shirking their responsibilities given the video evidence the smaller group claims to have - you can watch it, but wait until you've digested your breakfast - showing their view that stunning was not effective as the RSPCA now contend. I think their may also be concerns that not all halal meat is stunned in the UK, there was a figure of 90% but I don't know how accurate that is.

You could level many arguments at these various groups with regards halal and kosher meat production, but I wouldn't have thought you would accuse any of them of being fascists or racists.

Now, I am willing to believe the EDL are as bad as everyone seems to believe they are, and that they are seizing on such things to back up some sort of agenda, but Alex, Martin and Fraser should be properly addressing these issues and presenting strong argument that the EDL are in fact not genuinely concerned with animal welfare and customer choice and are using such issues to support racial and or religious prejudice. If they are unable to do this, they should stop blogging on the topic, as surely for three quality journos such as themselves this would be an easy task.

Fergus - oops, I hadn't read the link, I assumed he was talking about the Black Shirts. That will teach me all sorts of interesting lessons about making assumptions. There's a lesson in there for all of us.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Archibald
August 27th, 2011 10:35am
Archibald, read your posting and now I am going off on a tangent, perhaps a new thread, if anybody is interested. I think the RSPCA is a useless, politically correct and waste of space organisation. It ignores much crulety, does not respond or act on reports by the public, and lacks teeth in matters such as crulety at abatoirs and in farms. Dog fighting is an example of their closed eyes and mouths. Together with the police they are symbols of official impotence.

Archibald

Mr Massie, further to my other posts, as noone here seems to know what the EDL stand for, I have started the job for you. Here is a link to their mission statement.

http://englishdefenceleague.org/about-us/mission-statement/

Now, I challenge you to dissect and defeat it. It's fairly short as you will see, so it shouldn't take you long. So let's have a proper debate. I am making the same challenge to Mr Bright and Mr Nelson.

(Please don't misunderstand me, I am not an advocate of the EDL by any means, simply an advocate of proper debate.)

Kennybhoy

Archibald on August 26th, 2011 10:24pm.

Not a Wodehouse fan then old chap? lol

Dennis Churchill

The description of Searchlight as “Anti Extremist” which is repeated in several newspapers and looks like a press release is rather Orwellian. The only organisations they oppose seem to be English or British Nationalists, I have never heard of them opposing Muslim Extremists.
The problems at these marches seem to be caused by violence from the so-called Anti-Nazi League.
Banning English Nationalism covertly, as is now done, is dangerous; banning it overtly shows an ignorance of history that our political class are just foolish enough to do.

Archibald

Kennybhoy - not especially, but then I made an assumption that in an article about 'fascists' the link Mr Massie had made would have referenced a different group of fascists, rather than a made up group of fascists. I am suitably embarrassed by my fascist faux pas.

RCE

Dennis Churchill @ 2:12,

You make a very good point. Have Searchlight ever 'counter-demonstrated' an SNP rally, I wonder?

Archibald

With regards Searchlight, they came out against Muslim extremism quite a few months ago, something that Martin Bright, to his credit, blogged on.
As for marching against the SNP, there's no more point of Searchlight confronting a rag tag bunch on centre-left thinkers, old school wet Tories and disaffected Lib Dems as them confronting the Women's Institute. I'm guessing you don't really know much about the SNP, Mr Churchill. Even less than I know about Wodehouse.

John Richardson

After your kind invitation on 'The Wall' Archibald, I am here to support your comments.

Indeed to support every single comment above other than the senseless 'ndm'.

Interesting that the 'liberal/progressive' attack on the EDL is so thread bear, so dishonest and so unintelligent.

Where will this country be in ten years?

Impoverished and bathed in blood?

Not impossible.

Ron Todd

Public services are now expected to provide a halal alternative. I believe that many like some schools and hospitals only offer halal meat. Would it be unreasonable to have clear labelling so we can all know what we are getting. Halal or humanly killed meat. And to have any public service that provides food to have a humanly killed meat alternative.

Nicholas

People like ndm represent the problem not the solution. So successful has been the march of the left in this country, even into the ranks of the Conservative party itself, that anything to the right of the left of centre is now deemed not just an opposing view but an increasingly unacceptable one according to the Leftist orthodoxy that infests every aspect of life in Britain. The right, not just the far right, is gradually being demonised and marginalised from politics. Cameron and his government are not of the right of centre, or even of the centre, they are just more privileged, elite, disconnected socialist politicians presuming to represent the public.

When people on TV are introduced as "right wing" journalists, commentators or activists but the vociferous champions of the Left get no such political label something is going very wrong in our country.

"De-toxifying the brand" was horseshit - at worse subverting the "brand", at best pandering to the Left. In 1997 I was a moderate right of centre conservative who believed in healthy and balanced left-right debate. Post New Labour and the emergent cod-socialism of Cameron and his coterie my right wing views have hardened significantly and continue to do so. I haven't moved willingly to the right I have been gradually pushed there by the views of people like ndm.

It is fascinating that the Left can get so worked up about the victimhood and paranoia of any number of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities but glibly condemn the victimhood and paranoia of the Christian English as false.

The ultimate objective of people like ndm is a one party state subscribing to the orthodoxy of socialism, whether it is dressed up as Labour, Lib Dem, "de-toxified" Conservative, the Green party or any one of the many other bites of the cherry the Left take in order to prevail. Of course they will characterise any dissenting views as articulating false victimhood and paranoia, as lunacy, as extremism. It serves their purpose of stifling dissent and tightening the screw of their prevailing ideology.

Dennis Churchill

Archibald
August 27th, 2011 4:16pm
I think you will find I never mentioned the SNP.
Searchlight is only ever associated with anti-British or in the case of the EDL, anti-English Nationalism. I have never heard of them exposing IRA supporters for instance, afterall the IRA is/was very extreme.
They could also consider the ANL that seems rather violent, I believe more of their supporters are arrested at EDL demonstrations than EDL members.

Dennis Churchill

It is interesting to speculate on Alex Massie’s future career in journalism if he had started this article: “As a member of the English Defence League...”We know the attitude of the National Union of Journalists towards the British National Party and its Guidelines on the matter so really we just have to read between the lines of their members as people did in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era.
And we think we live in a free country!

Nick Kaplan

NDM says

"An organizion suggesting that a kosher butcher "should offer non-kosher alternatives" would quickly find itself deemed anti-Semitic."

I'm sure anyone demanding such things of kosher butchers would 'quickly find itself deemed anti-semetic,' because it doesn't take much to be deemed racist or anti-semetic or anything else these days, certainly one need not be anti-semetic to be deemed such by today's wildly suspicious left-wing. Indeed I will probably be accused by someone of being anti-semtic just for having said the above (despite being jewish myself!).

Of course an organisation making such demands may well be anti-semtic, and may be making them because it is. But merely making such demands is not anti-semtic in itself, whether or not it is would depend on the reasons for making such demands and whether or not such reasons were applied consistently to other groups.

For instance if the EDL demands that muslim restaurants offer non-halal options (in my opinion a ridiculous demand, but not necessarily a racist one) a non-racist (although still not very good) reason for this may be to show respect for the belief's of their potential customers about the welfare of animals (in my opinion this ought to be left to the market).

Since this reasoning would apply equally to kosher restaurants the EDL should, in consistency, make the same demands of them. If they do not this would be a good reason for suspecting that their motives were racial rather than those stated.

However in itself the EDL policy on Halal food proves nothing, unless one is of a persuasion (i.e. left-wing) that automatically sees anything one disagrees with as racist.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Nick Kaplan
August 27th, 2011 6:41pm
Nick, interesting hypothesis.
Now, as a vegetarian, I surely have a right to demand that a steak house provides a vegetarian alternative to prevent me being prejudiced against. Likewise, a vegetarian cafe should have meat dishes on its menu to provide for non-vegetarian diners. Failure would invoke the accusation of prejudice. Going further, a pub must provide non-alcoholic drinks for those who do not drink 'booze', and a place frequented by abstainers must also sell liquor to avoid prejudicing against drinkers. Getting into murkier waters, brothels must provide every variety of sexual practice known to humankind, lest they be accused of denying a punter his/her human rights. Obviously this comes back to the B&B owner who denied same-sex men a bed for the night. Complicated? I am sure there is a Home Office pamphlet setting it all out. Only banning I can see is the EDL.

James de la Mare

While the vexed question of whether animals should be killed by bleeding to death or by some other means for religious satisfaction, it's surely this sort of triviality which gets in the way of the fundamental points in too many on-line comments?

That would tend to mislead those who don't agree with the commenters into thinking the comments were merely superficial entertainment. Surely we need to address the real points about the freedom of the EDL and others to uphold our own (English) culture and standards, and not be diverted into trivia?

Incidentally the Spectator took over an hour to decide if my earlier innocuous comment was acceptable or not before putting it on-line!

Dennis Churchill

James de la Mare
August 27th, 2011 8:23pm
I agree the EDL is the canary in the mine here. If an organisation that demonstrates and campaigns to preserve English culture is banned, because it offends minorities and the current politically correct orthodoxy, then there is something dangerous in the air.
We need to face up to the fact that England and the English as a country and recognisable cultural and ethnic group is not a popular concept with our current political class. Now being Scottish, Irish or Welsh is different and as for the French and Italians...

ndm

Conservative Cabbie writes:

-- Just out of interest (genuine enquiry), do you think an halal butcher should be made to offer non-halal options? That is the logical extension of a belief system that forces B&B owners to accomodate gay couples for example is it not?

I see no reason why a halal (or kosher) butcher should be forced to offer non halal (or kosher) options. Selling only halal meat is not discriminatory. Not renting a room to a gay couple is clearly discriminatory.

Ron Todd

There are guest houses that only accept gay male clients. Why are they not banned as discriminatory?

Most steak houses do offer a vegetarian alternative, are restaurants that serve only vegetarian food discriminatory?

If they are in the private sector people can choose or avoid. Clear labelling would help us all choose.

In the public sector a hospital for example the customer has no alternative. As some people would object to religiously slaughtered meat and some to all meat, both a humanly slaughtered meat and a vegetarian option should be available.

Ron Todd

White people protecting their property with baseball bats - dangerous vigilantes and probably racist.

Ethnic communities protecting their property with swords outstanding citizens an example to us all.

James de la Mare

Dennis Churchill - Yes! Englishness isn't a concept the current political classes can even think about, let alone understand and protect. Nor, seemingly, does Mr Massie have much sympathy for it in this article - but then he's Scottish. Within hours of my comment and your response others are back to the theme of meat. Amazing!

If that's the best the commenters can do, when the entire country is being overwhelmed by economic pressures and the inner city school classrooms are full of children whose families can't speak proper English (as David Starkey has made himself so unpopular pointing out), then no wonder the political classes seem to treat the voters with contempt.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

James de la Mare
James, good day,
As Joseph de Maistre stated: "Every country has the government it deserves"
The electorate in this country, unfortunately, is apathetic and crushed. The 'untermenschen' have taken stock of the situation, in more ways than one.

In2minds

Theresa May is the best recruiting Sergeant the EDL has ever known!

Dennis Churchill

James de la Mare
August 28th, 2011 11:28am
Yes there does seem to be a disproportionate number of Scots writing for the Spectator, it must have a large circulation in Scotland.
The reason Scotland, Wales and Ireland are indulged in their nationalism by our political class is that it serves to break the UK into Regions. The Regionalisation of England hit a problem, or that would have been another stage in the process. It is so much easier to deal with small regions, all competing and dependant on the Federal government, than self sufficient nation states.
Ireland is a good example. Waiting to be told the economic policy that will be applied to it and the other pauper regions.
As to the slaughter question I’m waiting on a Sikh taking a case to court. Under that religion it is forbidden to eat meat that has had a prayer said during slaughter so all Halal meat is forbidden to them. As our supermarkets don’t label the meat it must be difficult for an observant Sikh to get a decent steak nowadays.

Archibald

Dennis Churchill - I apologized for mis-reading yesterday, I meant RCE - for some reason it hasn't been posted.

James de la Mare - meat is being discussed for no other reason than ndm saw this as a particularly ridiculous part of the edl's mission statement. I simply played devil's advocate, as have others, as the view is very similar to that of animal welfare and other less 'contentious' groups. I'm sure Massie, Bright and Nelson will widen the debate as requested.

Baron

Anna sizes up the British unwashed: “The electorate in this country, unfortunately, is apathetic and crushed”.

dunno, electorates everywhere seem apathetic, crushed when those with deep desire to change the world rant about the EDL, immigration, the EU and stuff, what wakes them, what will also wake up the British electorate, will be what they have in their pockets, that has always been, unsurprising perhaps, the key determinant of people’s behaviour, the locals here may possess greater endurance when the money in their pocket is being cut, but even they will react eventually, probably very angrily, possibly not at a count but before.

ndm

Archibald writes:

-- meat is being discussed for no other reason than ndm saw this as a particularly ridiculous part of the edl's mission statement.

Actually, the meat was irrelevant. The relevant part was where an organization devoted to attacking the religion and culture of Muslims deems that Muslims must "show respect for other people’s religions, customs, and possible concerns about animal welfare issues (surrounding ritual slaughter)" It surely won't be long before the Daily Mail manages to trot out a new Mosely. Although, I guess the support of Breivik will probably delay that for a while.

Nicholas

Thanks for demonstrating my point about you, ndm, and showing that too soon after any attempt at intellectual engagement you descend to the usual emotive accusations and associations of the leftist collective.

Expecting that respect is shown to other peoples religions and customs doesn't really convey "attacking" since it was a long standing British value before New Labour codified and legislated it into a tortured imbalance to conform to their political ideology. In fact the EDL seems to be promulgated on an essentially defensive posture less about attacking other peoples religions and customs as protecting those of the English before that nation were peremptorily ordered to be multicultural and newly imported religions and customs were given precedence. Before the leftist conspiracy to use uncontrolled immigration as a weapon "to rub the right's nose in diversity". Before the left conveniently conflated English nationalism with racism, with 'Little England' and all the other pejoratives reserved for something that had to be treated very differently to Scots and Welsh nationalism in an era of supposed "equality and fairness".

Your muddled comment is typical of the contradictory and partisan attitude of the Left. Face it, you just don't like the EDL because they represent people who openly defy your orthodoxy - that is the real issue - people who are not cowed and intimidated by the Political Correctness, cant and dogma you have so successfully imposed on any debate. You want to shut them up and make them go away because they represent people who won't think like you. So you emotively associate the Daily Mail, Mosley and Breivik to demonise the dissent of anyone who openly dares tell you to shove your oppressive multicultural nonsense.

Who are the real fascists here, ndm, eh?

Archibald

NDM, your exact quote that I responded to was:
"Restaurants and fast food chains that do offer halal options should offer non-halal alternatives as well, in order to show respect for other people’s religions, customs, and possible concerns about animal welfare issues (surrounding ritual slaughter)."
You didn't say anything about attacking Muslims. Can you quote me that bit, please? If that's in their statement then obviously this puts things in a different light.

Rhoda Klapp

So, not only have Massie, Bright and Nelson failed to explain their treatment of the EDL, they are also failing to explain why they can't explain. The silence shouts louder than the words.

Deborah

It rather seems Alex (like the establishment) are fearful of the English expressing dislike for the fundamentalism of others.
Keeping the peasants down is not be an option now as it used to be. Trying to ridicule genuine concerns is likely to drive people into the arms of extremists. Not clever. The "broken society" and the "underclass" tags don't help either except they give journalists more to feed upon - they create self fulfilling phrophesies as they well know - they have a duty to report news not create it!

ndm

@Archibald -

Are you really that dense? The English Defence League website is awash in anti-Muslim sentiment. It has two campaigns 1) an anti-Halal campaign and 2) an anti-Mosque campaign. It has no campaign against kosher food - because that would immediately bring accusations of anti-Semitism. It also has no campaign against Catholic and Protestant churches - even though terrorist adherents of those religions have killed more than 3500 people in Britain since 1967 - far more than those killed by Muslims. The English Defence League is an anti-Muslim organization and it is hypocritic of it to demand respect of Muslims even as it has nothing but a militantly hostile contempt for them.

ndm

Sorry, Meine Damen und Herren. The English Defence League is a neo-Nazi outfit whose hatred is directed not against Jews but against Muslims. You can pretend all you like that it is concerned about traditional English values. That can only be a pretence because it flies in the face of the enlightment value of intellectual tolerance on which Western society is based.

The English Defence League and its supporters can delude themselves and lie to us that they are defending England. The reality is that they are attacking Britain. They do not an echo of the British fascism of the 1930s, for they are the children of that fascism.

As I wrote in my first comment, my ire is not directed so much at the imbeciles who don jack boots and black shirts but at those who provide intellectual support for their thuggery. Almost the entirety of the tripe Melanie Phillips published on her blog at The Spectator exposed the intellectual decadence of someone who seventy years ago would have been part of the Other that she now joys in attacking. While the unwashed masses deserve our criticism, their intellectual leaders deserve our contept.

ndm

Nick Kaplan writes:

-- Indeed I will probably be accused by someone of being anti-semtic just for having said the above (despite being jewish myself!).

The curious thing about this is that, despite being Jewish, Nick Kaplan uses the word anti-semitic seven times in his comment - and spells it correctly only once, when he quoted a sentence of mine. I don't know which of them are correct in Norwegian, but neither anti-semtic nor anti-semetic are correct in English.

Regardless, like so many other on this thread, Nick Kaplan really needs to read the works of Boll, Grass and Wolf to see how easily it was for ordinary people to be sucked into racism.

Archibald

ndm - perhaps you need to calm down a bit, there's a good chap. I don't know if you know what devil's advocate means, or if you've actually read any of my posts on this, but I've asked Mr Massie, Mr Nelson and Mr Bright to dissect and defeat the EDL through proper debate rather than just dismiss them out of hand with no explanation. They all argue for free speech and for exposing the EDL for what they are so that they perish in the sunlight, but do precisely the opposite.
I obviously haven't spent as much time on the EDL website as you have so don't know about their campaigns, looking now I see no actual detail of what the campaigns are beyond the titles.
Looking at their mission statement, it would seem they are not so much anti-halal as pro-choice and some very left leaning groups as well as parents and vegetarians would no doubt have a similar stance. Now, I don't doubt there is likely something more sinister behind this aim, but that doesn't stop me wanting a proper discussion. Indeed, by properly addressing any possibly legitimate 'beef' they claim to have, you surely defeat them and surely also have a more open society.
The same is true of any claims of Islam taking over areas and affecting democracy - surely it is better to investigate this and show it to be nonsense, than to simply dismiss it and let the view fester? And if there are legitimate issues such groups might dubiously attach themselves too for their own purpose - such as women's rights - then should they not be discussed? The police themselves have admitted to failing to deal with issues like forced marriage in the past (as opposed to arranged where both parties agree) due to cultural sensitivity. Surely you don't think we should avoid such matters and just cover any mention of such things with a broad accusation of racism?
I would argue that it's precisely your closed attitude to any opinion other than your own that leads to extremist views emerging.
And I would also argue that it's much better to defeat extremism through words - in a debate I've seen nowhere in the mainstream press - rather than have one group of extremists march and be confronted by another group of extremists, both sides of which are often riddled with people looking for a scrap rather than a debate. I was under the illusion that was how a healthy democracy worked.

Nicholas

Puerile.

daniel maris

Disambiguation:

1. The right to march is not the same as the right to assemble.

2. If however a society allows a right to march (e.g. there are marches by Islamic groups in Bradford on an annual basis), then this right must apply to all legal groups within that society.

3. We shouldn't allow a right to march in the UK, but we should enshrine a right to assemble and that should apply to all legal groups. Perhaps each constituency should have to designate a right of assembly area and there should also be national and UK assembly areas e.g. Hyde Park/Trafalgar Square.

James de la Mare

Archibald (7.52) The difficulty in reasoning with commenters like NDM is that they've seemingly already decided that bodies like the EDL are "fascist" and have to be suppressed without any other reason being necessary. In other words, it is intolerance of freedom of speech and thought. They tend to think other bodies are also fascist, which somebody like myself (who has known the political scene in Britain for several decades quite well) would associate with unremarkable conservatism of fifty years ago. Nothing at all to do with fascism.

Surely NDM needs to understand that merely marching in a noisy group, trying to draw attention to the uncontrolled spread of an alien religion, culture and legal system in their own native land, is nothing to do with fascism as older people knew it - a comprehensive political system primarily devised in Italy 80 or 90 years ago in quite different economic and political circumstances?

NDM uses this term (as usual) as an abuse in order to avoid the effort and trouble of trying to devise a more accurate term for those limited nationalists (or patriots as the Irish or Americans would call them). It seems that the EDL are fairly rough and ready people, probably without the veneer of NDM's literary ability, and while one should make allowance for that, it doesn't make their concerns any less genuine. Indeed I'd guess those concerns are shared by 90% of the native British population.

In my view, as I've previously said, they should most certainly be allowed to march or demonstrate, or freedom of speech will be the loser - as perhaps NDM wants.

Fergus Pickering

Since I believe that freedom of speech includes the freedom to express racist views and that our anti-racist laws are deeply fascist, throwing the R word about has no effect on me. Nor should it on anyone else.

ConservativeCabbie

I find it ironic that here in the UK, the left question EDL statements like this:

"the EDL stands opposed to the creeping Islamisation of our country, because intimately related to the spread of Islamic religion is the political desire to implement an undemocratic alternative to our cherished way of life: the sharia."

Whilst in the US they make statements, speaking of a supposed dominionist plot to take over government:

"The main idea of the New Apostolic Reformation theology is that they are modern day prophets and apostles. They believe they have a direct line to God ... the way that they're going to clear the way for it [the end of the world] is by infiltrating and taking over politics and government."

Is there any difference between those two statements? Well of course there is. One is acceptable to the left (the second statement comes from liberal darling Rachel Maddow and similar sentiments have been echoed at the NYT, New Yorker and Salon.com) and the other is bigoted/racist/fascist etc.

Rhoda Klapp

Archibald, nice persistence. The argument is not with ndm, who may be entirely right (for the sake of argument) but with Massie, Bright and Nelson, who are wrong to do as they have and write as they have without coming back here to support their (untenable, to me) positions. They might be able to get away with the kind of statements they made in some journo community, but out here they are held to a higher standard and have failed to get anywhere near it. We had this last year with the BNP. The fact is that there is a widely-held concern over Islam in the UK, and if the mainstream won't touch it with a bargepole other groups will arise who will. The people must be heard. Right now we have journalists, whose only useful function is to reveal some of the truth, sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la, and writing what their masters want.

Nicholas

The most inane aspect of ndm's position is his attack against intellectual "support" for the EDL. Actually that is mostly support for the concept of freedom of speech rather than the EDL per se, but it is a useful deceit for those vehemently opposed to the organisation's existence to conflate the two. I wonder what ndm thinks happens next when minority groups nursing passionate causes and grievances, real or imagined are denied the right to pursue them peacefully through the political process?

And as if on cue he raises, disingenuously, the subject of sectarian violence by Catholics and Protestants, ignoring the nationalist imperatives involved and conveniently misplacing the relevant fact that the "solution" to that problem was the exact opposite of what he proposes for the EDL.

He then descends to the ludicrous juvenility of addressing us in German and yet still expects his facile comments to be taken seriously and treated as credible. He ignores my comments entirely, as though that makes them invalid and his somehow more legitimate. Another abusive and marginalising leftist trick promulgated on the elitist idea that some people are not worth engaging with. Why? Because they disagree and do not conform.

He personifies the double standards, hypocrisy and repressive objectives of the British Left and deploys their usual trick of emotively relating the EDL protests to the worst excesses he can think of. Bogus and impoverished as an argument, utterly contemptible as an agenda.

If ndm represents the sort of people who hold power over us and direct the course of this country then God help us.

LibertarianLou

Of course we should let them march. We can't set a president that the state gets to decide who is allowed to protest and who isn't.

What are they scared of, that people might agree with them or something? Trust people a bit more, Ms May!

Nick Kaplan

"The curious thing about this is that, despite being Jewish, Nick Kaplan uses the word anti-semitic seven times in his comment - and spells it correctly only once, when he quoted a sentence of mine. I don't know which of them are correct in Norwegian, but neither anti-semtic nor anti-semetic are correct in English."

I apologise for neither paying a huge amount of attention to what I had written nor re-reading it and consequently misspelling anti-semitic several times.

Curious though that this, apparently, is sufficient to warrant being implicitly compared to a deranged mass murderer, which is the only way I am able to interpret the sly comment about the Norwegian spelling of anti-semitic. This desperate resort to slurring anyone who disagrees with you really does demonstrate how shallow you are.

Perhaps ndm you could grow up and actually engage with some of the points I and others have raised, but that would involve thinking about and questioning some of the things you believe, and that really would be dangerous for someone as shallow as yourself.

Noa

"most people see them for what they are: fools and goons"

Add 'mendacious' to that and the description equally fits the extreme left/muslim militarist mainstream party supported "Unite against Fascism" organisation.

Baron

not worth commenting on, Baron thought having scanned it, except for the point raised by Nick.

not a single word of what it is the EDL stands for, does, he objects to, but a lot of baseless accusations by association, infantile smears, otiose name calling, just like the ignorant lot Baron remembers from the days of the Red Menace.

Alex

Does Godwin's law apply to people citing the Daily Mail?

Archibald

(Forgive re-posting from Wall - more relevant here)
DOES UAF BENEFIT THE EDL?
As you may or may not know (indeed the recent extension of the marching ban by Theresa May was strangely absent from the blogs on the bastion of free speech that is Spectator.co.uk) the demonstration at Tower Hamlets by the EDL will be a static one. In several articles on the subject, the EDL are able to take the moral high ground with regards free speech quite convincingly because of the ban and various other perceived threats to their right to demonstrate, including the rather odd allegation that the RMT Union is planning to disrupt their original muster point:
“What no one thought to consider was the possibility that the RMT (The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers) might get wind of our plans and threaten to close stations by calling on their members to go on strike.
We’re not sure that having to transport people to a demonstration is really a legitimate reason for industrial action, but the threat has been enough for the police to cave in to the pressure and abandon the previous plan.”

At the centre of their concerns about Tower Hamlets is the possibility of UAF making an appearance:
“Although the UAF have also been prevented from holding a march, they are thought to be holding a counter-demonstration nearby. From previous demonstrations we expect them to try and aggravate and provoke EDL supporters. Please can we remind everyone that any trouble would detract from the important reasons why we will be in Tower Hamlets.
There have been numerous newspaper articles recently that have been highly critical of the UAF – highlighting that their arrest figures are often far higher than ours, and rubbishing their claims that they are fighting ‘fascism’. If people are ever going to stop believing some of the baseless accusations spread by the UAF, then this support is crucial. Let’s not do anything to jeopardize it.”

Another article goes on to state:
“It is true to say that, although most EDL marches have been entirely peaceful, there have been problems in the past. But that was before we recruited a dedicated stewarding team, and before the police began to realize that the majority of trouble at demonstrations originates with the UAF. This is an organization that follows us up and down the country inciting loosely organized Muslim gangs, such as the so-called Muslim Defence League, to violence. We’ve grown used to there being a very clear pattern: no UAF, no trouble.
Nowadays, the anti-extremism aims of our organization are clear, and there is no reason to think that an EDL demonstration would contain any dangerous elements or that our presence would provoke more than the usual shrill, misinformed condemnation that we are used to from members of the far-Left.”

The EDL are being left able to imply, through reference to other events, that it is not Theresa May who is making the decisions about who can and cannot protest, rather it is groups like the UAF. Indeed the UAF find themselves in a rather odd situation, as quoted in an article on the matter in the Telegraph, where free speech is apparently more important that it is at the Spectator. Brendan O’Neill writes:
“Now, UAF has issued what must rank as one of the silliest political statements of the year so far. ‘We the undersigned welcome the banning of the racist English Defence League’s march through Tower Hamlets,’ it says. ‘But we are appalled to discover that the Metropolitan Police are applying for a blanket ban on ALL marches across five London boroughs… It is our human right to peacefully march in Tower Hamlets.’ Wait – how come UAF has a “human right” to march, but the EDL does not? Are EDL members not human? Moreover, it really is spectacularly daft to talk about the importance of the right to march in the same breath as you welcome a government decision to ban a march. What UAF is effectively saying is: ‘We should have the freedom to march, but they shouldn’t.’
Which rather confirms that the anti-fascist Left doesn’t know the meaning of the word freedom.”
(full article: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100102396/)

So what do you do when such a “heinous” group is able to take the moral high ground on matters of freedom of speech and the right to protest? What do you do when the decision on whether or not to allow a march appears to be dictated by another group who are against the original group? This raises some interesting questions about liberty that I don’t have the answers to. However, leaving the situation as it is must surely allow them to grow their support. So, it follows that one course of action is to change the battleground. Rather than fight them on an argument that many will feel they are winning on, fight them on the facts. As Douglas Murray says, “most of what is said in open debate is not to everyone’s taste… but we must hear contrary opinions, because what is otherwise kept from us may be true… and secondly if our opinions go unchallenged then truth risks getting divorced from its rational roots.”

Who out there is challenging the opinions and views of the EDL? The fabulously fearless Spectator certainly isn’t. Commentators can bleat all they like about free speech, but until they start debating properly they have surrendered the moral high ground to the EDL without even a whimper.

Archibald

(re-posting as relevant here)

FRASER NELSON – FABULOUSLY FEARLESS or DREADFULLY DELUDED?

"The world is a dangerous place to live in; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it."
So said Albert Einstein. I'm not one to point fingers, but in this case you get the feeling that old Albert was (consciously or not) ripping off Edmund Burke's more famous quote. However, I favour the Einstein quote here as it is these very words that have been misappropriated by the EDL to open their mission statement.

Fraser, writing on the subject recently, stated "the best way to deal with such groups is not to keep them in the dark, but let them perish in the sunlight. It's a shame that they have been spared this fate." It’s a quote that mirrors much of the sentiment of Einstein’s, and it’s a quote that few “free speech fundamentalists” would disagree with, Martin Bright being a notable exception.

Fraser’s argument prior to this conclusion was - at least in my view - flawed. He cited Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time: “The BNP thrives on the idea of being the voice of the people, gagged by the politically-correct elite. The biggest blow ever made against the BNP was putting Nick Griffin on Question Time: the oxygen of publicity proved to be toxic.” For me, the public humiliation of Nick Griffin was a massive missed opportunity by the political classes, and the horrible little man would no doubt have been able to point to his supporters that he was indeed "gagged by the politically-correct elite" that evening. Watching the show, I was horrified at how little time was given to confronting any arguments and showing them for the nonsense they were, while a huge amount of time was devoted to abuse, sniggering behind hands and self-satisfied digs. I don’t doubt it cemented the views of the political classes what a vile man he was, but they would have believed this to be the case already. However, how many of his potential supporters, perhaps confused and isolated, sat at home watching, would have seen it as this? It may very well have reinforced their fears and prejudices. It was a circus freak-show that had much to do with humiliating an idiot with a dodgy eye, and precious little to do with defeating anything he stood for. It wasn’t so much a triumph for free speech, rather it was a triumph for the louder voices of the majority.

Countless times, politicians argue that such views should be exposed for what they are. Countless times journalists say likewise. But in the end, there is no great exposé. The light is not shone. There is just the usual lazy, smug condemnation by people, who, when faced with the nuts and bolts task of tackling extremism properly, turn off the light, walk away and “don’t do anything about it.”

Boris71w

I don't know how its suddenly become a crime to have different views from other people. This idea that you must have respect for other people's beliefs is ridiculous. As an atheist I will argue that anyone who believes in a god is either stupid or insane. I have no respect for their views. They can argue back and disrespect my views all they like. I am not offended because I have no repect for their views of me either. I know I'm right and they are wrong. Words should never be regarded as harmful or offensive. People who find them so are obviously insecure in their own views. The reverse is also true; people who believe ridiculous things like racism or holocaust-denying should be allowed to argue their point of view so I can argue back and ridicule those views. The State should not punish people for their views or beliefs and I should have the right to argue why youre a dickhead for holding those views and beliefs. If those views incite violence this is not the fault of the person espousing the views, it is an over-reaction by those who disagree with those views; you dont ban extreme views because they might incite violence, you punish those who use violence to defend their own point of view. The EDL shouldnt be banned from marching because it will incite violence in their opponents; the anti-fascists should be jailed for violently opposing the march