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”
jonlansman
I bring up other religions because of my own experience being brought up as an “orthodox” Jew, one who still retains my Jewish identity though I am now a socialist atheist who stands up for Palestinian rights rather than Zionism. I relate to Islamophobia as a Jew.
And as to who are these “moderate Muslims”, they include every Muslim I have met in Tower Hamlets where I live, from those whose Muslim identity is as secular as is my own Jewish identity through to the observant religious Muslims who nevertheless engage with and respect others who live in their community.
Just as in my own family, and in other communities in Tower Hamlets, some find it harder than others to overcome the sexist and homophobic attitudes that they were surrounded by as they grew up,
I’m afraid that I find your view that “islam IS extreme” entirely objectionable and offensive.
Nick Read
600 people. 600 people don’t fill up the entire length of tower bridge. I watched EDL march from my office and believe me, there were thousands! I have been amazed by reports
I keep reading suggesting this. So why the constant attempt to play down the EDL. I think it may be people are beginning to see common sense and the left for what it really is, and they are getting nervy. Free speech as long as you don’t upset a muslim. Why? It’s always Muslims causing the trouble, always Muslims that are offended, always Muslims taking to the streets because people haven’t shown enough respect to their faith, always Muslims involved in grooming gangs, FGM, anti semitism, anti British, anti government, anti democracy, homophobia, subjugation of women’s rights, halal, lets be realistic and say terrorism too, non Intergration, preaching hate on the streets, cave deeeling sharia law, honour killings, rape of underage children as it is somehow acceptable in their culture. The fact muslims represent 5-6% of population yet 30% of prison population should be telling enough. How often do you see this from other minorities?? Remember despite the way the word is thrown about these days its not racist to oppose and idelogy, remind me what race is islam? It doesn’t happen people, not every faith and ideology are equal. With Muslims its always take take take. And the English people are fed up. I’m not an EDL member but beginning to wonder why?
Nick Read
nickread88@hotmail.co.uk
Nick Read
Off 300 arrests that day 286 were UAF/MUSLIMS
Fedup Voter
Firstly, may I say I am very plesantly surprised by the civility of the debate here and the breadth of views. I was expecting a great deal more unquestioning support for multicultralism and Islam.
That said, I would simplify that definition of Islamism down to “support for sharia law” and would point out a summation of an ECHR judgement made by the President of the court on 22nd Jan 2004:
“In its judgment, the Court first noted that freedom of thought, of religion, of expression and of association as guaranteed by the Convention could not deprive the authorities of a State in which an association, through its activities, jeopardised that States institutions, of the right to protect those institutions. It necessarily followed that a political party whose leaders incited violence or put forward a policy which failed to respect democracy or which was aimed at the
destruction of democracy and the flouting of the rights and freedoms recognised in a democracy, could not lay claim to the Conventions protection against penalties imposed on those grounds. Such penalties could even, where there was a sufficiently established and imminent danger for democracy, take the form of preventive intervention.
Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it”. According to the
Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.”
That clearly sets out the dangers that sharia represents to UK values and complementary to that, the Islamic doctrine of “Enjoining the good, forbidding the evil” is relevant. This link briefly explains it under things that threaten the ‘religion’:
http://bitesizeislam.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/ms094-protection-of-lineage/
That phrase essentially means working towards imposing Islamic values on the public sphere (the very opposite of plurality and tolerance) and is the exact one that can be heard on one of the Muslim Patrol videos of people being harassed on the street that circulated earlier in the year, so the doctrine is very obviously being taught in the UK
Fedup Voter
Apologies, the correct link for “enjoining the good” is here
http://bitesizeislam.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/ms091-protection-of-religion/