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.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
46 Responses to “The EDL fails to attract support, but anti-Muslim sentiment remains widespread”
Tacwhyt
I think youll find that the overwhelming amount of reports suggest that the EDL were outnumbered and very few reports suggest there were more than 600 EDL supporters. I think the author’s very well made point was despite this, we shouldn’t ignore the messages they raise and indeed point out that some of their sentiment is shared by the wider population. I am all for putting Islam on the spotlight but make no mistake about it ViroMan, the EDL is supported at the peril of us all. Their methods and articulations Infact make it more, and not less, difficult for people to afford real analysis to the role of religion, and Islam more specifically, in soviety.
Nothing
Thankfully none, for they did nothing unlawful unless you view the right to public assembly as illegal and see a legitimate reason for arrest being leaving the police designated UAF static protest park. Although, those arrested have been given bail conditions not to engage in demonstrations within the boundaries of the M25 where the EDL, EVF or BNP are present. So EDL and their like can continue their ‘amateur expression of their views’ by marching through towns and cities and districts with a large immigrant populations trying to stir hatred all in the name of democracy! While the taxpayers pay for the police to escort them around on their tour of various car parks.
Out of interest when have UAF turned up and brought violence and mayhem to town and cities?
Additionally, why do some people (such as yourself) tar all antifascists with the same brush, the brush of UAF. Those that were arrested were a separate group; Antifa alongside many locals.
jonlansman
“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.”
It is a shame on a site that prides itself on producing evidence based analysis (https://www.leftfootforward.org/about/), and in an article much of which could be agreed by most LFF readers, to find
Eisenhorn
If we want to talk about violence then the UAF and EDL pale in comparison to Antifa.
Of course Antifa is amongst the ranks though, it goes without saying, but a small amount.
The thing about the UAF is that they ALWAYS counter protest against the EDL which causes chaos and arrests.
This is because they are government controlled. Divide and conquer anyone?
The beer swilling EDL or the SWP front UAF??
How about NEITHER?
I look at the mission statement of both groups and think ‘fair play’… Then I see their actions.. ‘No thanks’.
However the UAF are there as a catalyst to create chaos. If you don’t think they are not capable of violence then mingle amongst the ranks as they throw bottles and psyche themselves up for a fight with the ‘Nazis’! (If you actually know what a Nazi is you know the EDL are not)
Let the EDL show themselves up without the help of the UAF.
Eisenhorn
Choudary is a government asset they aren’t taking their boy out the game any time soon friend.
There will be an increase of the EDL due to the result of cultural Marxism. Muslims don’t integrate well and they shouldn’t have to; global caliphate? Sharia Law anyone? These are their beliefs and ideologies they have their own way of life, we have are own as well… None of this is meant to work. That’s the point!
Multiculturalism was only ever forced upon us to be used for divide and conquer. Left/Right its time to reject these terms and look at the bigger picture. Multi racial society is a blessing. Multiculturalism is used to terminate a host nations culture and help cause a breakdown in society… Ask Sweden and the like.