Dominic Ashton reports on last weekend's English Defence League rally in Tower Hamlets.
Dominic Ashton reports on last weekend’s English Defence League rally in Tower Hamlets
Last weekend’s English Defence League rally, though garnering a significant amount of media attention, reportedly attracted an unimpressive 600 participants, who were handily outnumbered by rival protestors.
This has prompted some onlookers to question why the left occupies itself with such a small, insignificant group and others to laud the superior turnout of opposition rallies as a sign that the EDL’s flavour of prejudice is receding.
Yet triumphalist conclusions, when viewed from a broader perspective, may be premature.
Whilst true that preoccupation with the EDL flatters their rather modest levels of support, the group’s lack of success does not efface the need for constructive debate on the arguments they speak to. What hinders the EDL, in common with many attempted far-right incursions in recent memory, is not an infertile breeding ground for their ideology, but what Tommy Robinson, displaying a rarely deployed capacity for understatement, once described as “a bit of an image problem”.
Not often accused of knowing too much, Robinson is at least accurate on this point- with 84 per cent of those who are aware of the EDL professing that they would never join the group and only 6 per cent (down slightly in the wake of reprisals for the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich) willing to consider joining the organisation.
Scenes from the rally- featuring a keynote speech from Robinson which merged, as best it could, disparate themes of unfair treatment at the hands of the authorities, opposition to military action in Syria, the transgressions of Muslim grooming gangs, female genital mutilation and supposed Muslim controlled ‘no-go’ areas – are unlikely to persuade public opinion to the contrary.
Whilst the EDL has from its inception attempted to co-opt the language of human rights, even having the temerity to pose as a champion of women’s rights on occasion, its appeals to be taken seriously are seldom answered. Even it’s mission statement – which is carefully worded to present the organization in a benign light – lapses into identitarian politics as it asserts the importance of “respecting tradition” and insists that “the onus should always be on foreign cultures to adapt and integrate”.
‘Cultures’ – conceived as obstinate, ossified entities – are the arbitrarily defined groups creating the spark of conflict by the EDL’s account. Broadly adapting Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations thesis has become something of a hallmark for the modern far-right.
These portents may be ominous, but the thin barrier between central leadership and ordinary members makes the group’s challenge of winning support even more unlikely.
Unsavoury elements can easily join through the porous mechanisms of social media and lend their unphotogenic presence to public gathering without formal subscription. The cruder biological racism and associations with street violence that these members entail are enough to further dispel any notion that the EDL can successfully mobilise potential sympathisers who manage to overlook the controversies surrounding the leadership itself.
Yet complete complacency over the EDL’s platform risks conflating message and messenger: anti-immigrant sentiment and in particular anti-Muslim attitudes have remained at steadily high levels in spite of the EDL’s inability to capitalise on it. Statistical confirmation can be found in the British Social Attitudes survey, which concluded that “no other group elicits so much disquiet” among the British population.
Even more starkly, hate crime statistics indicate the effects of this prejudice in its more active form: 50-60 per cent of recorded anti-religious hate crime estimated to be directed against Muslims.
The discrepancy between potential and realised support for far-right movements is redolent of the UK’s encounters with the far-right in its more familiar electoral guise; the repeated poor performance of which is derived not from any exceptional cultural insulation from European trends, but from the lack of sophistication, and general incompetence, of our respective far-right parties.
The EDL has proven so far to be the social movement inheritor of this unsuccessful legacy. It is unclear what effect the street-based anti-fascist demonstrators have had in hampering their efforts, but it has to be noted that question marks remain over Unite Against Fascism, who have been accused of harbouring extremists of a different stripe.
Whilst it may be too trite and reductive to say that UAF are as bad as the EDL, the increasingly mutually dependent relationship of Islamist and far-right extremists should make selective opposition to extremism increasingly untenable. Nonetheless, the accumulated opposition to the EDL did ensure a sense of numerical embarrassment for the anti-Muslim group.
The unsolved attitudinal drivers of far-right sympathisers remain, however, and so the ideas that fuel the EDL’s marginal street presence are still obstinately active among the wider population.
The weekend’s skirmish may be seen as a defeat for the organised far-right on the streets, but the task of convincing a sceptical population of the benefits of immigration – particularly by engaging in the more difficult cultural, as well as economic, arguments – will have to be taken up elsewhere.
46 Responses to “The EDL fails to attract support, but anti-Muslim sentiment remains widespread”
swatnan
There’s no doubt about it, the EDL was a reaction to the disgraceful activities of Chowdray and his islamofiacists. Once Chowdray and his religious nutters are silenced, then the EDL will go away down the plughole.
Mark
Why should anyone be surprised about this? From my perspective, the EDL, or at least Robinson is difficult in the sense that he basically says the same things regarding militant Islam as did Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins, who I’ve read for over ten years. But, his organisation is so very obviously based on football hooliganism and racism. They order themselves into “divisions”, Robinson himself has taken on the name of an apparently infamous Luton football hooligan, and the people who turn up to rallies (Only seen on TV I admit) seem to be simple thuggish racists. However Robinson, in interview might confine his ire to radical Islamism, it shines like a beacon that their overall objective is to be against all Muslims. Most right thinking people won’t go along with that.
On the other hand, why should there still be feelings against Muslims in the UK?
That’s a little more difficult to understand if it actually is “all Muslims” or mainly against the radicals. It is hardly surprising that pre 9/11 hardly anyone would give a second thought to Islam etc, but 9/11 and everything since, not only in the USA and UK/Europe, but in various parts of the world, would make quite a few people want to know what drives those terrorists. This manifests itself in either taking from the media what is reported on Islam, or looking more for yourself, and from the concept of Jihad, through women’s rights, FGM and veiling to Quranic verses etc,etc, people have found a religion that is hard to fit in 21st century UK.
Some of the same would probably be found in Orthodox Judaism, but seeing as there is no terrorist threat from that direction, nobody goes looking.
Another thing that particulalry annoys me, is the use of certain ‘Muslim representatives’ on TV and radio, who are invariably religiously devout. Do they really represent all Muslims?
How can a Muslim representative on TV, discussing for instance, the Danish cartoons, say “nobody should have been killed for that, however…”? There should be no “however” about it. This for me, is where that representation falls flat in a largely secular society. The implication is that violence due to depictions of Mohammed should be expected and understood. There are more examples like this.
Turning to Twitter, I can find many modern UK Muslims who ridicule these people and don’t wish to be represented by them, but they get no voice in media because the TV companies actually want the orthodox religious as the supposed ‘moderate view’, when it is anything but.
This week we see a Birmingham college has a policy banning all head coverings. This has been taken as a direct discrimination on Muslim women. Why should I believe the Principal of the college when she says the policy has been in place for a number of years and that it also covers non-religious head coverings and it’s for security, and various Muslim organisations not believe it? Apparently, there is to be a protest outside the college this Friday, specifically regarding the banning of the veil. This was retweeted by TellMama, an organisation set up to monitor hate crime against Muslims. Is this a hate crime? Have TellMama investigated and know something the rest of us don’t? If they haven’t, why should they retweet something about a protest which could be against a valid policy?
Surely that goes against their ‘hate crime’ remit?
Looking at the majority of comments given in online newspaper artlicles about the ban, there is no gnashing of teeth against ‘Muslims’ but overall measured responses regarding adhering to a ban which in this case, has encompassed religious dress.
So from absolute armed Jihad against the West, down to feeling discriminated against for a valid policy, has ordinary people upset and frustrated.
Hardly a solution, but a step forward, would be to have the regular orthodox TV representatives balanced (more) by non-orthodox and secular Muslims.
JonathanBagley
“Statistical confirmation can be found in the British Social Attitudes survey, which concluded that “no other group elicits so much disquiet” among the British population.”
Even more disquiet generated recently as Joe Public, without any prompting from the EDL, ponders the purpose and expense of CCTV security systems which can be circumvented by anyone whose culture (not religion) apparently requires them to remain unidentifiable.
JaqStansfield
A timely (and well written) reminder. All too often pertinent questions about islamic ideology are brushed aside as the exposition of ‘racist’ fanatics.
Zainab523
Yes! ‘conflating message with messenger’ – why cannot everyone on the liberal left understand this as clearly as this author can? My twitter feed has been completely bombarded by twits proclaiming victory of multiculturalism