I want to look down the time-tunnel again at life under Cameron. But before thinking about the highlights of the Dave and George show coming to a Parliament near you soon, I want to consider what happens on May 6 2010. Last week I was trying to sketch out where the first Tory attacks might come. This provoked some debate about how to vote, and whether it even matters. I think what happens outside Parliament is more important than what happens in it - that the fate of the Miners' Strike in 1984 was more important than the fate of Neil Kinnock. But what happens inside the house still counts - a lot. For all their desperation to suck in Tories and businessmen - step forward Shaun Woodward, Paul Drayson, Quentin Davies and "Lord" David Simon - Labour still has a relation with the unions and a reliance on workers' votes. It might be hard to see it under the hail of privatisation, deregulation and war, but Labour's still more likely to throw a few more bones to our side, and the Tories quicker to show their claws. A decade's worth of Brown and Blair might have worn Labour's social democratic commitment down to a largely symbolic status. Alistair Darling is seriously considering reports from privatising Tory banker Gerry Grimstone, while Brown throws out a few cheap shots about Eton. But in the absence of anything else, symbols matter.
A vote is a big signal to their side and ours. Their side will take a vote for Cameron as a vote for compliance and a cue for more vicious cuts. Our side will be cheered by a vote for some kind of resistance. Most of that resistance might take place in the day-to-day struggle outside Parliament, but the election sets the scene. Votes for serious challengers to the left of Labour would send the strongest message. The past decade has seen some of the best electoral results for left candidates against new Labour. Unfortunately, instead of revising and preparing, we have spent the past five years tearing up our homework and throwing it in the bin. Votes for the last men and women standing from the left keep that project alive, but only just. I don't have a big list of Coventry's charms but living there gives voters the chance to put their X by the name of Dave Nellist of the Socialist Party. I thought Respect was wrong to reduce "socialism" to the initial letter "S" in their name, but there is still more left-wing principle in Salma Yaqoob than the entire Cabinet. Left-wing independents like Dai Davies in Blaenau Gwent and Val Wise in Preston deserve votes, as do whatever Solidarity and the Scottish Socialist Party can pull together north of the border. However, if the election is about demonstrating where the left stands, I don't think a string of lost deposits helps anyone.
So a vote against Cameron mostly means a vote for Labour. In most cases, not voting Labour will be taken as compliance with the Conservatives. The idea that abstention or wasted votes will be taken as a rejection of both government and opposition is a bit like hoping that when the monsters come, if we close our eyes they will all disappear. Cameron winning is a bad thing. Cameron winning by a landslide is worse. You get one more braying member of Cameron's Parliamentary Barmy Army for every 10,000 or so votes, one more foot soldier ready to get gung-ho for a forward assault on the welfare state. Now your Labour votes might mostly - with a few honourable exceptions - deliver an MP who fails to do much about that, but as US socialist Eugene Debs said: "I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it." Assuming that millions of people ignore my sage advice, what does a Tory government look like? Last week I looked at their likely economic policy. But how would they relate to the war on terror? They certainly like to make warlike noises. Shadow defence secretary Gerald Howarth announced at the last Conservative conference he would like to be called "Minister for War."
Forty years ago Howarth was in the university air cadets, so he likes to act like he is a wartime RAF pilot. Yet despite the Biggles behaviour, Howarth was actually a banker before he was an MP. His boss Liam Fox also likes the military act, although the former GP finds it harder to pull off the right macho posture convincingly. Fox is very much linked to the "Vulcan" wing of US Republicans and shares their enthusiasm for seeing enemies everywhere and threatening to bomb them. In one meeting at the Tory conference, Fox talk about "Resurgent threats: Terror, Russia and Iran?" Fox is desperate to take up arms against this sea of troubles, especially ones sold by the arms firms who sponsor most of his meetings. But all this warlike stance can't change the basic fact that their international policy will be like Labour's: "Whatever Obama says." Both Fox and Bob Ainsworth will only send troops abroad as dance partners to US forces. This is not wholly reassuring, given Obama's attempts to widen the Afghan conflict into Pakistan, but narrows the difference between the parties.
However, looking at some of the people involved suggests that the Tories will be more aggressively reactionary on the home front in the "war on terror." Cameron relies heavily on Michael Gove for his speeches about the dangers of "Islamic extremism." Gove in turn relies on Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a truly right-wing figure. In a 2006 speech on the "war on terror," Murray declared: "Europe still has time to turn around the demographic time-bomb which will soon see a number of our largest cities fall to Muslim majorities. It has to. All immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop." He claimed that political correctness and relativism were the "Aids of the West" leading to the "opportunist infection of Islam" which is "deadly." "Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board," he insisted. A Cameron victory brings this insidious creature closer to the political centre.
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label islam. Show all posts
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Monday, 15 March 2010
Sinister parallels of hatred
There are weeks to go before a general election and the main parties are struggling. Cue the filthy politics of scapegoating and divide and rule. If it were only the fascists of the British National Party and their street-fighting associates in the English Defence League it would be bad enough. But so widespread and respectable has demonising Britain's Muslim and immigrant communities become that unscrupulous mainstream politicians are tempted to slide from the gutter into that sewer. The ground is sadly fecund for them, fertilised by mountains of manure from not only the right but from people who consider themselves liberals. This is one of the especially pernicious features of Islamophobia - racism against Muslims. Even the medieval scholastics would have been hard pressed to come up with the kind of specious distinctions which so many journalists and academics resort to in an effort to claim that sweeping generalisations about Muslims or identifying their core practices with fundamentalism do not amount to a form of racism.
The same sleight of hand was in play a century ago, when old religious prejudices against Jews became fused with anti-immigration rhetoric and transformed into a prejudice directed at an ethnic, cultural group, which increasingly became defined as that scientifically inaccurate category - race. It is no exaggeration to say that you can pore over parliamentary debates, politicians' speeches and media exposes a century ago in London’s East End and, by substituting Muslim for Jew, find exact parallels with today's prejudiced ravings. In 1902, Tory MP for Stepney Major William Evans Gordon complained that English families were being "ruthlessly turned out to make room for foreign invaders" and that in some schools "few English children are to be found." He complained of widespread Yiddish advertising and the opening of synagogues. Lurid stories circulated about Jewish religious customs and beliefs. Had the technology existed, there would certainly have been an undercover hatchet job on some Jewish organisation or other.
Maybe other, more liberal, politicians might have engaged in theatrical walkouts from a traditional wedding and denouncing gender separate seating arrangements in the yellow press. Still others might have claimed that it was not Jews per se they were against, but the participation of Jewish community organisations, such as the Bund, in British political parties. Anyone who’s followed the recent smears against the Muslim community in east London will get the picture. There are affinities between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. Both are driven not only by scapegoating of newcomers domestically, particularly in times of economic hardship. They also have an international dimension and are the product of a world view. Nearly a century ago Jews were held to be responsible for a Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy which, preposterously, was supposedly pulling the strings of the socialist movement and the international banking system. Today, Muslims practising their culture and religion are held to be part of a global continuum stretching over to Osama bin Laden, a breeding ground for a fundamentalism which threatens our very way of life.
Every war requires a justification. Wars of aggression cannot be made popular by presenting their true motivation. So ideology is needed, lies. And that ideology is inherently racist, because you have to find a way of getting people not to empathise with a score of civilians blown up on an Afghan road in the same way they would if there was a tragic pile up on the M1. Islamophobia is the ideological handmaiden of the so-called war on terror. Here, it shows family traits with other ideological props of war. One of the most disgraceful allegations against Muslims in east London is that they, in the form of one of the largest community organisations here, have been "infiltrating" British political parties. On the one hand Muslims are told they must engage in British democracy. On the other, when they do they are denounced as infiltrators. The Tory Sunday Telegraph seemed perplexed that there was both a big increase in votes in the East End for Ken Livingstone when he ran for mayor two years ago and large numbers of people registering to vote this year.
It immediately summoned up the spectre of hardcore fundamentalist manipulation. The more plausible explanations are that Ken - supported by Respect, which commands a big vote in east London - won support because of his policies and opposition to Boris Johnson's dog-whistle politics and that, in an election year with every council seat up for grabs and a referendum on an elected mayor to boot, it was quite natural that registration would rise in a highly politicised place like Tower Hamlets. But the "infiltration" claims resembled nothing more than the anti-communist propaganda of the 1950s and '60s - the ideology of the cold war. Coincidentally - or maybe not - the Israeli intelligence services have warned of action to undermine the alliance between the left and Muslim communities in Britain, in London in particular, embodied in the movements against war and for Palestine. The demonisation of Muslims disfigures our society and is set to feature strongly over the next few weeks. That's certainly so in Tower Hamlets, where the Labour Party's head honcho has smeared the town hall - and by extension all who work there - as "a centre of Islamic fundamentalism." One of his Facebook friends charmingly suggested he should go there armed with "pork scratchings."
The Stop the War Coalition and others are working on a major conference after the election to confront Islamophobia. It aims to draw in the broadest range of participants, trying to win a principled position among those way beyond its ranks. But the coalition is not waiting until then and nor should anyone who cares about the rising tide of prejudice. The BNP and EDL should be confronted and exposed. And every candidate in this election should be challenged over this question. The Tories should be asked if they are happy to associate with Michael Gove, who's campaigning Swiss-style against the construction of a mosque in his constituency. Labour should be asked why their campaign in Tower Hamlets is bent on dividing Muslims from non-Muslims and sowing divisions in the Muslim community itself. A recent British Social Attitudes survey found that the public is far more likely to hold negative views of Muslims than of any other religious group in Britain. That was so of Jews in the 1930s. We have been warned.
The same sleight of hand was in play a century ago, when old religious prejudices against Jews became fused with anti-immigration rhetoric and transformed into a prejudice directed at an ethnic, cultural group, which increasingly became defined as that scientifically inaccurate category - race. It is no exaggeration to say that you can pore over parliamentary debates, politicians' speeches and media exposes a century ago in London’s East End and, by substituting Muslim for Jew, find exact parallels with today's prejudiced ravings. In 1902, Tory MP for Stepney Major William Evans Gordon complained that English families were being "ruthlessly turned out to make room for foreign invaders" and that in some schools "few English children are to be found." He complained of widespread Yiddish advertising and the opening of synagogues. Lurid stories circulated about Jewish religious customs and beliefs. Had the technology existed, there would certainly have been an undercover hatchet job on some Jewish organisation or other.
Maybe other, more liberal, politicians might have engaged in theatrical walkouts from a traditional wedding and denouncing gender separate seating arrangements in the yellow press. Still others might have claimed that it was not Jews per se they were against, but the participation of Jewish community organisations, such as the Bund, in British political parties. Anyone who’s followed the recent smears against the Muslim community in east London will get the picture. There are affinities between anti-semitism and Islamophobia. Both are driven not only by scapegoating of newcomers domestically, particularly in times of economic hardship. They also have an international dimension and are the product of a world view. Nearly a century ago Jews were held to be responsible for a Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy which, preposterously, was supposedly pulling the strings of the socialist movement and the international banking system. Today, Muslims practising their culture and religion are held to be part of a global continuum stretching over to Osama bin Laden, a breeding ground for a fundamentalism which threatens our very way of life.
Every war requires a justification. Wars of aggression cannot be made popular by presenting their true motivation. So ideology is needed, lies. And that ideology is inherently racist, because you have to find a way of getting people not to empathise with a score of civilians blown up on an Afghan road in the same way they would if there was a tragic pile up on the M1. Islamophobia is the ideological handmaiden of the so-called war on terror. Here, it shows family traits with other ideological props of war. One of the most disgraceful allegations against Muslims in east London is that they, in the form of one of the largest community organisations here, have been "infiltrating" British political parties. On the one hand Muslims are told they must engage in British democracy. On the other, when they do they are denounced as infiltrators. The Tory Sunday Telegraph seemed perplexed that there was both a big increase in votes in the East End for Ken Livingstone when he ran for mayor two years ago and large numbers of people registering to vote this year.
It immediately summoned up the spectre of hardcore fundamentalist manipulation. The more plausible explanations are that Ken - supported by Respect, which commands a big vote in east London - won support because of his policies and opposition to Boris Johnson's dog-whistle politics and that, in an election year with every council seat up for grabs and a referendum on an elected mayor to boot, it was quite natural that registration would rise in a highly politicised place like Tower Hamlets. But the "infiltration" claims resembled nothing more than the anti-communist propaganda of the 1950s and '60s - the ideology of the cold war. Coincidentally - or maybe not - the Israeli intelligence services have warned of action to undermine the alliance between the left and Muslim communities in Britain, in London in particular, embodied in the movements against war and for Palestine. The demonisation of Muslims disfigures our society and is set to feature strongly over the next few weeks. That's certainly so in Tower Hamlets, where the Labour Party's head honcho has smeared the town hall - and by extension all who work there - as "a centre of Islamic fundamentalism." One of his Facebook friends charmingly suggested he should go there armed with "pork scratchings."
The Stop the War Coalition and others are working on a major conference after the election to confront Islamophobia. It aims to draw in the broadest range of participants, trying to win a principled position among those way beyond its ranks. But the coalition is not waiting until then and nor should anyone who cares about the rising tide of prejudice. The BNP and EDL should be confronted and exposed. And every candidate in this election should be challenged over this question. The Tories should be asked if they are happy to associate with Michael Gove, who's campaigning Swiss-style against the construction of a mosque in his constituency. Labour should be asked why their campaign in Tower Hamlets is bent on dividing Muslims from non-Muslims and sowing divisions in the Muslim community itself. A recent British Social Attitudes survey found that the public is far more likely to hold negative views of Muslims than of any other religious group in Britain. That was so of Jews in the 1930s. We have been warned.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Islam is not a virus needing ‘treatment’
West Yorkshire chief constable Norman Bettison’s comments in Generation Jihad on BBC2 are a matter of grave concern. Bettison used the term “would-be jihadis” to refer to sections of the Muslim community. This panders to the same anti-Muslim language that the far right draws on His assertion that he expects that “it will take a generation of treatment to prevent the infection spreading” is also deeply problematic. The viral analogy is offensive. It suggests that any Muslim who comes into contact with extremists is prone to being “infected” by terrorism. And it is racist, as it assumes that Muslims have no agency in resisting the lure of “jihadis” and instead external intervention is required to “treat” the community. Bettison knows that the vast majority of the Muslims reject extremism. Would the chief constable use the same kind of language to discuss repeated accusations of police brutality? Or would he deal with it on a case by case basis and use the metaphor of a “few bad apples”? Bettison would be advised to engage with the reality of our experience in this region.
The truth is that the police disproportionately stop and search black and Asian people.West Yorkshire police routinely gather DNA of innocent black and Asian people. Trust and confidence is at an all time low. His extreme comments send a chilling message to the Muslim community. They are going to be subject to continued surveillance, policing and intelligence operations for the next generation. His complaint that Muslims need “to work much more closely with the police to provide information and help identify would-be jihadis” assumes that the community is hiding known extremists. If there is evidence of this occurring, Bettison should make it public. He seriously risks making inter-racial tensions worse by implicating an entire community. The government’s Prevent programme is also engendering mutual fear and suspicion within the Muslim community. Many groups now have to work in a climate where they are suspected of acting as police informants. There is nothing wrong in expecting citizens to report criminal behaviour. However, the Prevent programme operates in a context where established reporters, photographers and artists have been arrested under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
In this climate, the comments from the chief constable are likely to increase the concern that people will find themselves reported to the police on the basis of gossip and innuendo. Communities will be asked to monitor themselves for possible “thought crimes”. This will not aid good citizens operating in a climate of respect and cooperation.Bettison risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where mutual suspicion leads to less open communication and a greater chance that suspicious activity will go unreported. The producers of Generation Jihad have in one fell swoop dismantled the Muslim communities’ efforts to rebuild West Yorkshire’s reputation as a vibrant multi-cultural, multi-racial and diverse area. They have portrayed this region as a haven for extremists and terrorists. The BBC has secured its sensational headlines, added the term “generation jihad” to the burgeoning lexicon of Islamophobia and left West Yorkshire’s black and white communities to pick up the pieces. We expect the press and media to indulge in sensationalism. But we do not expect the chief constable of West Yorkshire to tarnish a whole community in the name of the “war on terror”.
The truth is that the police disproportionately stop and search black and Asian people.West Yorkshire police routinely gather DNA of innocent black and Asian people. Trust and confidence is at an all time low. His extreme comments send a chilling message to the Muslim community. They are going to be subject to continued surveillance, policing and intelligence operations for the next generation. His complaint that Muslims need “to work much more closely with the police to provide information and help identify would-be jihadis” assumes that the community is hiding known extremists. If there is evidence of this occurring, Bettison should make it public. He seriously risks making inter-racial tensions worse by implicating an entire community. The government’s Prevent programme is also engendering mutual fear and suspicion within the Muslim community. Many groups now have to work in a climate where they are suspected of acting as police informants. There is nothing wrong in expecting citizens to report criminal behaviour. However, the Prevent programme operates in a context where established reporters, photographers and artists have been arrested under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
In this climate, the comments from the chief constable are likely to increase the concern that people will find themselves reported to the police on the basis of gossip and innuendo. Communities will be asked to monitor themselves for possible “thought crimes”. This will not aid good citizens operating in a climate of respect and cooperation.Bettison risks creating a self-fulfilling prophecy where mutual suspicion leads to less open communication and a greater chance that suspicious activity will go unreported. The producers of Generation Jihad have in one fell swoop dismantled the Muslim communities’ efforts to rebuild West Yorkshire’s reputation as a vibrant multi-cultural, multi-racial and diverse area. They have portrayed this region as a haven for extremists and terrorists. The BBC has secured its sensational headlines, added the term “generation jihad” to the burgeoning lexicon of Islamophobia and left West Yorkshire’s black and white communities to pick up the pieces. We expect the press and media to indulge in sensationalism. But we do not expect the chief constable of West Yorkshire to tarnish a whole community in the name of the “war on terror”.
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Nip Nazi problem in bud this year
“I cannot rule out violence,” these are the ominous words of English Defence League (EDL) founder Tommy Robinson. He was talking about the EDL’s planned demonstration in Bolton on Saturday 6 March. Three weeks ago more than 1,200 EDL supporters rampaged through Stoke-on-Trent. They ran riot. Asian shops were attacked and car windows smashed. The previous night a local mosque had been spray painted with the words “Islam scum” and “EDL”. That is the reality of EDL demonstrations. It shows why anti-racists must take to the streets in Bolton. Barry Conway, Bolton secretary of National Union of Teachers, said “Instead of celebrating our diversity, the EDL want to destroy it. It is vital the community unites to stop them. “We are putting a motion to our branch AGM opposing the EDL coming here and calling for a united campaign if they do.” Brian Iddon, MP for Bolton South, strongly opposes the EDL coming to Bolton. He said they are the “boot boys of the BNP”. But unfortunately he has also told the community to “stay calm”, “not get involved in confrontation” and “if possible, ignore them”. But Stoke shows that the strategy of staying at home and hoping it all goes away can only lead to disaster. The EDL claims it is a non-violent organisation. But there is violence whenever it comes out on the streets.
It says it isn’t racist and only opposes “extremist Islam”. But it issued a statement this week calling for a ban on the building of any mosques - and has been known to chant "Pakis out" while goading each other to beating innocent ethnic minorities up. Footage from the Stoke rampage shows EDL supporters chanting “BNP, BNP”, only to be told by Geoff Marsh, one of the demonstration’s organisers, “Don’t shout BNP boys... it’s EDL, right. That’s stupid.” I am worried that the EDL will give confidence to the BNP. They are weak here, but the EDL protest could help them in the election. This isn’t about religion or Islam - these people are coming here to spread violence and hatred. In Germany the Nazis demonised Jewish people long before the Holocaust. They attacked synagogues and witch-hunted Jews before eventually murdering millions. Today fascists are a tiny minority, but groups like the EDL could quickly become a breeding ground for the BNP. Known British National Party (BNP) activists have been seen on EDL protests. The German left in the 1930s failed to unite to stop the rise of fascism. We cannot make the same mistake today. We need to draw on the lessons from the movement against the National Front in the 1970s, when they were driven from the streets by working class unity.
Anti-fascist campaigners in Barking, east London, are gearing up for a day of action against the BNP this Saturday. The BNP are standing leader Nick Griffin for parliament in Barking. Parliamentary boundaries have been redrawn since the last election. This has increased the number of BNP councillors in the Barking constituency from five to 11. Unite Against Fascism (UAF) held a highly successful day of leafleting in January. It boosted local people’s confidence to challenge the BNP. UAF received phone calls and emails almost immediately from people who had received Don’t Vote Nazi leaflets through the door. This excellent start to the campaign now needs to be built on to ensure the anti-Nazi majority in Barking is mobilised to stop the BNP. The Nazis have grown in Barking by feeding off the scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims whipped up by politicians and the press. It taps into peoples’ worries about jobs, housing and services. But it blames immigrants or Muslims, rather than New Labour’s promotion of the interests of big business.
Fascism is about more than just racism – it is an ideology that aims to destroy all democracy. Today’s British National Party stands in this tradition. Many people reading the mainstream media coverage of the British National Party (BNP) will have been struck by a curious coyness when it comes to describing the nature of the organisation. The newspapers and TV news reports are happy to describe the BNP as “far right”, “hard right” or even as “extremist”. But, as a rule, they are reluctant to explicitly call the BNP a fascist organisation. There are certainly no legal barriers to doing this. The Standards Board for England ruled in 2005 that describing the BNP as Nazi was “within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate”. Partly this reluctance is due to widespread confusion over what fascism is, how fascist organisations differ from merely racist or right wing ones, and why fascist organisations pose such a unique threat to all forms of democracy at every level of society. This confusion is compounded by the habit of using “fascist” as a catch-all term for any kind of authoritarian rule. In fact it is not so difficult to grasp what fascism is, providing one is willing to look outside liberal approaches to history.
After the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, fascism was thrown into crisis. Attempts by fascist activists to revive the Nazi movement were met with scorn and derision by ordinary people across Europe. It was during this time that French fascists headed by Jean-Marie Le Pen decided they had to change track. They would no longer openly proclaim their dedication to Hitler and genocidal racism. Instead they would present themselves as nationalists, concerned about immigration and multiculturalism, in order to embed themselves within the political system. This did not mean dropping fascism, but hiding it. Le Pen’s Front National still has an army of thugs it uses to spread race hatred and terror, as does the BNP in Britain. Whenever the BNP manages to root itself locally, racist attacks and murders in that area rise. The strategy for anti-fascists is to unite the broadest possible forces against the Nazis, to expose and confound their attempts to pose as a legitimate democratic party, and to confront them on every front until they are driven out of the political mainstream and back into the gutter where they belong.
The roots of the British National Party (BNP) lie in the splinters of the National Front (NF), the main fascist organisation of the late 1970s. A mass movement led by the Anti Nazi League (ANL) rose up to confront the NF. By the early 1980s the fascist presence in Britain had been smashed into warring fragments.John Tyndall, a lifelong Nazi activist who once declared “Mein Kampf [Hitler’s political testament] is my bible”, launched the BNP in 1982 out of the merger of several of these groups. The party had little success throughout the 1980s, but hit the headlines in September 1993 when Derek Beackon was elected as the BNP’s first councillor in a by-election on the Isle of Dogs in east London.
Throughout this period the BNP was based in headquarters in Welling, south east London. The area soon found itself at the centre of a wave of racist attacks and murders – most notably that of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death by racists in April 1993. The ANL was relaunched and helped organise protests against the BNP. A 60,000 strong anti-fascist demonstration converged on the BNP’s Welling headquarters in October 1993, and Beackon himself was defeated at the 1994 council elections. Throughout this time the BNP was relatively open about being a fascist organisation.
In 1990 the European parliament’s committee on racism and xenophobia described the organisation as an “openly Nazi party”. Tyndall himself declared, “Many who feel that Hitler was right do not believe it is safe yet to state such views openly – but times will change.” Nick Griffin, who ousted Tyndall as BNP leader in 1999, was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1998 for publishing The Rune, an antisemitic magazine. During his trial Griffin stuck by his claims that the Nazi Holocaust had not taken place. “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades,” he said in court. “I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria.” But once Griffin had won leadership of the BNP he was forced to take the party on a different course after Beackon’s defeat. Seeking to emulate the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National in France, Griffin tried to hide the BNP’s fascist nature in order to appear respectable. This meant playing down the party’s overt racism and shifting the direction of its bile towards more “fashionable” targets such as muslims, and multicultural migrant workers.
It also meant a shift away from marching in the streets and open racist thuggery towards concentrating on winning elections. Despite these cosmetic changes, the party remains committed to fascism. In 2002 leading BNP member Mark Collett – one of Griffin’s key lieutenants – was secretly filmed stating his admiration for Hitler. “I’d never say this on camera, [but] the Jews have been thrown out of every country including England,” he said. “It’s not just persecution – there’s no smoke without fire.” And Griffin himself has spent his entire life on the fascist right, ever since attending NF meetings as a teenager in the 1970s. However much he tries to lie or dissemble about the BNP’s true aims, it remains a Nazi organisation dedicated to creating an “all white Britain”. And now with their friends at Combat 18, the National Front, the English, Welsh and scottish Defence Leagues, and a whole range of other hardline Nazis, we need to be fighting harder than ever for our fair, egalitarian democracy and society. By attending rallies and marches against intolerant fascist vermin like these, we are also standing up against their racism, sexism and homophobia.
The EDL has been touted as the street fighting wing of the BNP. Although both the EDL and the BNP deny such links, several of the EDL’s leading organisers are listed as BNP members. BNP supporters have also been spotted at recent EDL protests. But the growing anti-fascist movement is confronting the BNP and the EDL wherever they go. Anti-fascists have chased the EDL out of Birmingham and Harrow in the last couple of weeks. Thousands of young people – black, white and Asian – are fighting alongside trade unionists and other campaigners to stop the EDL.= and other Nazi organisations. Unite Against Fascism (UAF) will hold its annual conference on Saturday 13 February in central London. The conference will be crucial for all those who oppose the Nazis and want to stop them making gains – both in elections or in strength on the streets. The BNP has made some gains on the back of the economic crisis, anti-immigrant racism, Islamophobia and anger with mainstream politicians. But they have always been opposed – and the next six months will be key to building up that opposition.
The campaign to halt Nazi Nick Griffin’s ambition of winning a seat in the general election took off last Sunday. The BNP leader plans to stand in Barking, east London. The first Barking and Dagenham Unite Against Fascism day of action brought together 170 people, including local residents, trade unionists and political activists. They leafleted every house in the Alibon, Goresbrook and Parsloes wards. The Nazis have 12 councillors on the local council. “The BNP winning local council seats has made people more wary. It creates divisions,” Andrew Jones told Socialist Worker. He lives in Alibon ward, where the BNP have two out of three councillors. Police statistics show that when the BNP wins seats racist crime rises. In Barking’s Eastbury ward, racially motivated violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled after the election of the BNP’s Jeffrey Steed in 2006. Forty five racial incidents were reported in the following year. Local resident Marcia said, “The BNP work on people’s discontent, the lack of jobs and low status they suffer. “They say ‘Here is your scapegoat’, and point to black people. “The BNP’s latest leaflet talks about crime and has pictures of young white men who have been killed. It’s insidious. People will assume that they were killed by black people – but they weren’t. It plays on prejudices.” a local primary school teacher said, “We need to nip this in the bud, or it will escalate and lead to the destruction of communities.”
More than 1,200 supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) went on a violent rampage through Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent, last Saturday. Football hooligans, known fascists and anti-Muslim fanatics gathered in the city centre. Hundreds of local people also joined the EDL brawl. The British National Party (BNP) has hidden its support for previous EDL demonstrations. But this time leading party members, local and national, openly took part. On Friday night the words “Islam Scum” and “EDL” were daubed on the walls of a mosque in the Normacot area. And at the end of the demonstration hundreds of EDL supporters swept through an Asian area attacking homes, shops and cars. This was clearly a national mobilisation for the EDL. There were reports that transport came from the barracks of the Mercian regiment. As the EDL gathered, supporters chanted, “Muslim bombers off our streets.” But within a few hours it had become unquestionably racist. “If you hate all Pakis clap your hands”, they shouted. Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism said, “EDL supporters attacked black and Asian people – and whites who they claim are race traitors. “This must never happen again. Racist and fascist thugs taking to the streets in such large numbers must be met with a mass movement that can drive them back into the sewer.” The violence was aided by the large turnout of organised football hooligans. The EDL’s main financial backer, Alan Lake, says they are a mass “that gets off their backsides and travels to a city and they are available before and after matches.” On Saturday EDL supporters ripped planks of wood and masonry from nearby buildings. They repeatedly attempted to attack anti-fascists, hurling bricks, firecrackers and bottles. The police had arrested 17 people by Tuesday morning. Seven men have been charged, the majority with racially or religiously aggravated disorder offences.
Those charged came from Cheshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Birmingham. On Saturday’s demonstration photojournalist Guy Smallman was hit by two bottles. He said, “We regularly see police surveillance teams on non-confrontational anti-war protests, but here they kept their distance.
“Most disturbing of all was the police’s apparent willingness to allow around 600 EDL supporters to march unaccompanied into a mixed residential area where they proceeded to smash cars and shop windows.” The EDL did not go unchallenged. A counter protest of around 500 students, trade unionists and local people – black, white and Asian – turned out to counter the EDL. Robby and Colin, two local black people, said “They think they speak for the people of Stoke, but they don’t. The BNP is using the recession and targeting vulnerable people.” Kevin, who came with the student delegation, said that the police had been telling students not to join the protest. He added, “Stoke is important for the BNP – they have eight councillors here. We need to show people that anti fascists are the majority”. Jason Hill, from the North Staffordshire Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, said, “The EDL’s racism and Islamophobia are not welcome here.” Trade unionists from the NASWUT, NUT, Unison, CWU and Unite attended the protest, as did local councillors. Steve Funnell, of North Staffordshire TUC, told a journalist, “Stoke has never recovered from Thatcher’s recession. “Many of the problems in our communities have not been addressed so it has become a breeding ground for organisations like the BNP and EDL.”
The British National Party is becoming a household name. In the process it is trying to appear more moderate and respectable. But it is not. Scratch the surface and you find the same old racist organisation it always was. It is run by hardline nazis who believe that the Holocaust did not happen. Its rule book remains firmly entrenched in the principles of racial superiority and the banning of racial integration. The BNP may have got cleverer but its real politics remain the same.; they are the same hateful, divisive nazi scum they have always been. The BNP is dedicated to imposing apartheid-style rule in Britain. It wants to create a system that is based on the nonsense that white people are superior to all others. Black and Asian people would become second-class citizens under the law. We must not ignore the BNP. Everyone who rejects the BNP's politics of hate has the duty to do everything they can to stop them. This section of the website is about arming people with the information they need to confront the BNP. The BNP would kick out all those people who were not born in Britain. What if every other country in the world kicked out the Brits? A staggering 5.5 million people would be sent back here – far more than would leave our shores. This includes 800,000 from Spain, most of whom are pensioners.
If non-white people were ordered out of Britain then the NHS would collapse overnight. 16% of nurses are from minority ethnic communities, as are 40% of new dentists and 58% of new doctors! The BNP would introduce apartheid into Britain. The BNP call for whites to be given first preference in housing, education and jobs. This is no different from apartheid South Africa, a racist regime which the BNP supported. Mixed-race relationships would be outlawed. The BNP constitution opposes any racial integration. Articles in BNP journals condemn mixed-race relationships as “mongrelising the white race”. The BNP’s answer to violent crime is to allow every household to have a gun. We kid you not. This barmy idea was in the BNP’s 2005 general election manifesto. The British National Party won two seats in last month’s European election. Nick Griffin, the party leader, was elected in the North West with 8% of the vote and Andrew Brons took a seat in Yorkshire and The Humber with 9.8%. The BNP succeeded because the other parties failed. While the BNP vote in those regions was actually lower than the last time round in 2004 the Labour vote dropped far more substantially. In Yorkshire and The Humber, the Labour vote fell from 413,213 in 2004 to 230,009. In the North West Labour’s vote went down from 576,388 to 336,831.
Griffin just sneaked in. In the North West only 2,500 more votes for the UK Independence Party or slightly over 5,000 more for the Greens would have deprived Griffin of a seat. Nationally the BNP vote share was 6.2%.That is a mere 1.3% more than in 2004. In terms of votes the BNP took 943,598 this time compared to 808,200 in 2004. The BNP did badly in the South East (4.4%), South West (3.9%), London (4.9%) and Wales (5.4%). Even in the East of England, where the party at one stage thought it might take a seat, it polled only 6.1%. In Scotland, where the BNP has never had much support, it came home with 2.5%. In the West Midlands the BNP’s 8.6% was not enough to allow Simon Darby, the deputy leader, to join his colleagues in Europe. Likewise the East Midlands, which only has five seats, gave the BNP 8.7%, far below the vote needed. In the North East, which sends just three MEPs to the European Parliament, the party never had a chance of winning one, but its 8.9% was a big increase on its previous vote. The strength of the BNP vote in a number of areas is a deep cause for concern and gives an indication of the key battlegrounds in next year’s local elections. The BNP polled 10% or more in 52 local authority areas, the highest being Barking and Dagenham where it took 19.5% of the vote.
This picture is even more disturbing when the UKIP vote is included. Almost as many UKIP voters voiced concern about immigration as BNP voters - many people who voted UKIP for Europe might vote BNP in a local election. There were also a number of local authorities where the BNP vote went up dramatically compared to 2004. Substantial increases in BNP votes took place in Wales but a change to the way the Welsh votes were counted means an exact comparison with 2004 is impossible. However, as we discuss in our regional reports on pages 22-24, there were also areas where the BNP vote froze or even dropped. Among these are Burnley, Pendle, Bradford, Dudley and Sandwell. This was the BNP’s biggest election effort ever. The party poured up to £0.5 million into the campaign, hoping the investment would yield all the funding to which MEPs are entitled and the chance to link up with nazis and fascists internationally. Against the fascist party was the biggest and most professional HOPE not hate campaign ever staged. They delivered 3.4 million newspapers and leaflets across the country in the two months leading up to the election. In the North West alone, 1.6 million HOPE not hate newspapers and leaflets were put out by approximately 1,200 supporters, an effort which dwarfed that of any of the political parties who contested the election.
In Yorkshire, 880,000 leaflets were distributed, including 200,000 targeting the large Muslim population in West and South Yorkshire. Across the Midlands 300,000 newspapers and leaflets were put out. Even in London, which was never one of their key priorities, about 300,000 pieces of literature were distributed, including 50,000 newspapers in Hackney and a similar number of localised leaflets in Barking and Dagenham. Another success of the campaign was our press work. Throughout the campaign they worked with the media to inform the public about the real face behind the BNP’s lies and racism. On the eve of poll email was sent out to almost 600,000 addresses, making it the largest single political email in British domestic political history. And above all, in a time when the credibility of all the political parties suffered because of the expenses scandal, thousands of people, many who have never campaigned politically before, got involved in the campaign. We were always faced with an uphill struggle. The European election, contested in most of the country with no coinciding local elections, and against the economic recession and an increasingly unpopular government presented a perfect storm for the BNP, even before the expenses scandal blew. Once that happened it was always a matter of damage limitation and one of our most important successes was in preventing the anti-establishment protest vote going to the BNP.
It is clear both from the results and from the extensive YouGov election day survey of voters that the BNP did not pick up the protest vote. The BNP hardly increased its share of the vote nationally and the YouGov survey demonstrated that the BNP only turned out its hardcore support. Those questioned had almost uniform views on race and immigration, indicating there had been no movement to the BNP of people who had more moderate views but wanted to cast a protest vote. Another success of this campaign was increasing the turnout of anti-BNP voters. Nick Griffin, in the North West, actually received the lowest percentage vote for the BNP in any of its key regions. In several cities, such as Manchester and Liverpool, the Labour share of the vote remained the same as 2004, bucking the national trend, suggesting that Labour managed to turn out a significant section of its traditional vote but also new voters, determined to stop the BNP. On election day Michael Crick of Newsnight was in Blackburn, an area of traditionally strong BNP support but where the local anti-BNP group had delivered the East Lancs version of the HOPE not hate newspaper to 56,000 of the 58,000 homes. Crick reported long queues of people, both Asian and white, at polling stations, many stating clearly that they were there to vote against the BNP.
There was also unusually high voting at the polling station closest to Manchester University, suggesting that students were coming out to vote against the BNP. Similarly, in Birmingham, while some traditional Labour voters were staying at home, the party’s support was boosted by the high turnout among the city’s minority communities. Two BNP MEPs are two too many. We believe that the HOPE not hate campaign limited the BNP gains (and almost prevented Griffin from winning in the North West) but now we must face the new challenge ahead. The BNP now has a platform and resources with which it can greatly expand its activities but they will also be under the spotlight as never before and their election has generated widespread anger and revulsion. Over 80,000 people have signed our “Not in my name” online petition, the vast majority totally new to us. Our job, to coin an organising phrase, is to turn this anger into hope and finally into action. But we cannot do this without the aid of fellow anti-fascists opposing racism, sexism, homophobia and fascism across Britain. We need your aid as much as possible especially this year; just 3.3% of the vote could get Griffin and his odious views into Parliament, which would be a disaster to our fair, equal democracy; especially as they work closely with and finance other far-right organisations such as the National Front.
Immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan will be one of the primary themes of the British National Party’s general election campaign. Speaking on BNP television, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, sets out a blatantly populist stall for the election, which he believes will be called in late February or very early March. Griffin hopes to exploit what he sees as an “enormous gap” between the views of the public and “politicians” on Afghanistan. The second main issue for the BNP, not surprisingly, will be “mass immigration and Islam in particular”, a subject at which he intends to go “hammer and tongs” to show the public that the BNP has not “gone soft”. He may also have an eye on limiting the damage to his party’s reputation among its racist supporters caused by his decision, forced by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to open BNP membership to non-white people. The third theme will be Europe. While recognising that Europe plays a lesser role in the general election in the minds of the public, Griffin explains that it is very important for a section of the public that the BNP aims to attract, namely those voters who are not sure whether to vote BNP or for the UK Independence Party. As for the economy, the issue on which most people will focus, Griffin dismisses it on the grounds that it is “not feasible for us to get across the fact that a nationalist economic policy is the only way out of the mess”.
In other words, the BNP will go for votes by exploiting policies chosen for that purpose alone, rather than present a serious political programme to the electorate. Griffin appears to dismiss voters as too stupid to understand his economic arguments, though the reality is that the BNP’s mishmash of economic nationalism, fascism and opposition to trade would totally wreck the British economy. Griffin states that his party is not yet ready for the election, though the main leaflets have been designed. There is also some fundraising to be done, he admits, before moving on quickly to another subject. Money may well be a problem. The BNP went into the European election campaign in a dire financial state and spent large sums on its misnamed “Battle for Britain”. Before the election last June the party pledged that in the event of victory the party would contest every seat in the country in the general election. That would commit the party to £325,000 in candidates’ deposits alone, much of which would be lost as the BNP will not overcome the 5% threshold for return of deposits in most constituencies. Probably realising the foolishness of standing hundreds of no hopers, Griffin backtracked, grabbing the opportunity to blame the three-month freeze on recruitment of new party members that he had agreed as a result of the EHRC’s court case.
Exaggerating wildly as usual, Griffin claimed the EHRC had cost the BNP a potential £105,000 in membership fees from 3,000 people keen to join up. “Those lost funds would have allowed the BNP to drive its way through the quiet Christmas period and launch an impressive General Election campaign the likes of which have never been seen in Britain,” wrote Griffin in an email to supporters on 12 December. “As soon as we did make a breakthrough, the Equalities Commis-sion pounced in what was a carefully calculated effort to make the BNP unable to contest every seat in the country,” the arch conspiracy theorist continued. As a result the party had to “drastically scale back our General Election plans. … If you want to blame someone, blame the tax-guzzling foreigner Trevor Phillips,” said the racist, before going on to appeal to existing BNP members to upgrade their membership to “gold” for “a measly £30” or take out life membership for a more painful £465. One pot of money readily available to Griffin is the MEPs’ communications allowance for him and his fellow MEP, Andrew Brons. Each has £20,000 to spend on publicity about their work in the European Parliament and their constituency. While careful to acknowledge that the money cannot be used to promote the BNP, Griffin claims that when people hear of the two MEPs’ work, it will “have an effect”. The A3 folded glossy leaflets for the two constituencies will be ready for distribution “early in the new year”, revealed Griffin, providing “some cracking publicity”.
Leaflets will be an important part of the BNP election effort, but the BNP will not do telephone canvassing, Griffin promised, claiming that people do not like it. Instead BNP canvassers “will knock on doors”. Presumably he thinks voters are happier with a bunch of heavies at their front doors. Probably the real reasons the BNP has rejected telephone canvassing are that none of the sources of the necessary data would deal with the racist party and that the party’s canvassers sound even worse on the phone than on the doorstep. In choosing Afghanistan as one of his election themes, Griffin must hope that voters will overlook the contradiction with the party’s much repeated claims that Islam is trying to colonise Britain and Europe and impose Sharia, and that the Muslim community harbours terrorists. In his constituency newsletter Griffin denounces the war in Afghanistan arguing that British troops should only be sent to war “when the British people or British interests are being threatened”. Yet the BNP maintains that Islam has been engaged in a war on Western civilisation since its inception. Griffin lumps together the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ignoring the fact that, unlike the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan was a direct response to the terror attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, with the aim, whether or not realistic, of preventing al-Qaeda using Afghanistan as an operational and training base.
Since then, Britain too has come under attack from al-Qaeda. Even where the individual terrorists were born in Britain, they were generally trained in or directed from Afghanistan or the Pakistan border area. There are good cases to be made that the war in Afghanistan may be unwinnable, or that Britain and the US have not committed sufficient resources, or that we should not support the Karzai administration, among other things, but it is unarguable that Islamist terrorism affects British people and British interests. Islamophobia is one of the guiding principles of the BNP except when it conflicts with the latest attempt to win votes, it seems. Rather than present a reasoned standpoint, Griffin resorts to emotion. Launching the party’s campaign to “Support our troops, bring them home” just before Christmas, Griffin described a “devastated, grieving mother” who spoke to him “recently” about the death of her “beautiful son” while serving in Afghanistan, and apparently implored Griffin to “help our boys out there or bring them home”. “These are the words now carved into my heart, the words of a grieving mother, words that I will carry with me to my grave and words that made me take a solemn oath to do every-thing in my power to honour, support and protect our fighting heroes who have been abandoned both on the battlefields of Afghanistan and back here at home,” gushed Griffin.
He went on to accuse “Brown, Cameron and Clegg” of being “evil leaders … liars and con artists [who] started and backed the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan …”. That none of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg were leaders of their respective parties in 2001, and that Clegg has consistently opposed the war in Iraq, must have passed Griffin by in his excitement over a new cause for an appeal for money. Announcing a “daring and innovative strategy to expose the hypocrisy, lies and cover-ups relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Griffin promises “a wave of activism, publicity material and direct action” which “will send shockwaves through the old parties and the traitors within the media”. It will consist of four phases. Firstly a “full-colour well-designed 12-page brochure, detailing the crimes against our soldiers” will be sent to “every MP, MSP, MLA, and AM as well as every member of the House of Lords and also every registered journalist in the UK”. Secondly, the BNP will send “10,000 brochures to each key town and city in every one of The BNP’s 12 regions”. The third stage will be, wait for it, a “nationwide truth tour” using “our very own ‘bought and paid for’ professional advertising lorry”. That’s the “truth truck”, better known as the lie lorry, a vehicle that the BNP does not own but leases from the hardline anti-abortion campaigner Jim Dowson. The tour will be followed by BNP TV films.
Anyone who thinks they have read this before would be right. The campaign has been recycled, almost word for word, from the BNP’s “Racism cuts both ways” initiative of autumn 2008. The 12-page outrage-ously Islamophobic brochure on that occasion listed 167 people whom the BNP alleged had been murdered as a result of anti-white racism, although only in a handful of the cases was there any clear indication of a racial motive and in several the perpetrator was white not black. The BNP claims to be different. Too true. No other party would go into a general election on the back of racism, Islamophobia, a recycled clapped out campaign, nothing to say on the issues that really concern the electorate and a lead policy selected solely to pull votes from the UKIP.
The EDL stokes up violence and race hatred wherever it marches. It now seems that both sides of fascism – electoral work and street fighting – will target Stoke-on-Trent together this month. The fascist British National Party (BNP) is also focusing on the city. It had a press conferenceon January 15th which launched the BNP’s general and local election campaigns in the city. The BNP already has nine councillors in Stoke-On-Trent. But the potential to drive back the fascists was clearly shown last summer, when 20,000 people – mostly young, white local residents – attended a Love Music Hate Racism festival in Stoke. The Nazis have 12 councillors on the local in Barking council. The BNP winning local council seats has made people more wary - it creates divisions. Police statistics show that when the BNP wins seats racist and homophobic crime rises significantly. In Barking’s Eastbury ward, racist and homophobic violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled after the election of the BNP’s Jeffrey Steed in 2006. Forty five racial incidents were reported in the following year. The fascists work on people’s discontent, the lack of jobs and low status they suffer. They say ‘Here is your scapegoat’, and point to black people. The BNP’s latest leaflet talks about crime and has pictures of young white men who have been killed. It’s insidious; people will assume that they were killed by black people – but they weren’t. It plays on prejudices. We need to nip this in the bud, or it will escalate and lead to the destruction of communities
It says it isn’t racist and only opposes “extremist Islam”. But it issued a statement this week calling for a ban on the building of any mosques - and has been known to chant "Pakis out" while goading each other to beating innocent ethnic minorities up. Footage from the Stoke rampage shows EDL supporters chanting “BNP, BNP”, only to be told by Geoff Marsh, one of the demonstration’s organisers, “Don’t shout BNP boys... it’s EDL, right. That’s stupid.” I am worried that the EDL will give confidence to the BNP. They are weak here, but the EDL protest could help them in the election. This isn’t about religion or Islam - these people are coming here to spread violence and hatred. In Germany the Nazis demonised Jewish people long before the Holocaust. They attacked synagogues and witch-hunted Jews before eventually murdering millions. Today fascists are a tiny minority, but groups like the EDL could quickly become a breeding ground for the BNP. Known British National Party (BNP) activists have been seen on EDL protests. The German left in the 1930s failed to unite to stop the rise of fascism. We cannot make the same mistake today. We need to draw on the lessons from the movement against the National Front in the 1970s, when they were driven from the streets by working class unity.
Anti-fascist campaigners in Barking, east London, are gearing up for a day of action against the BNP this Saturday. The BNP are standing leader Nick Griffin for parliament in Barking. Parliamentary boundaries have been redrawn since the last election. This has increased the number of BNP councillors in the Barking constituency from five to 11. Unite Against Fascism (UAF) held a highly successful day of leafleting in January. It boosted local people’s confidence to challenge the BNP. UAF received phone calls and emails almost immediately from people who had received Don’t Vote Nazi leaflets through the door. This excellent start to the campaign now needs to be built on to ensure the anti-Nazi majority in Barking is mobilised to stop the BNP. The Nazis have grown in Barking by feeding off the scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims whipped up by politicians and the press. It taps into peoples’ worries about jobs, housing and services. But it blames immigrants or Muslims, rather than New Labour’s promotion of the interests of big business.
Fascism is about more than just racism – it is an ideology that aims to destroy all democracy. Today’s British National Party stands in this tradition. Many people reading the mainstream media coverage of the British National Party (BNP) will have been struck by a curious coyness when it comes to describing the nature of the organisation. The newspapers and TV news reports are happy to describe the BNP as “far right”, “hard right” or even as “extremist”. But, as a rule, they are reluctant to explicitly call the BNP a fascist organisation. There are certainly no legal barriers to doing this. The Standards Board for England ruled in 2005 that describing the BNP as Nazi was “within the normal and acceptable limits of political debate”. Partly this reluctance is due to widespread confusion over what fascism is, how fascist organisations differ from merely racist or right wing ones, and why fascist organisations pose such a unique threat to all forms of democracy at every level of society. This confusion is compounded by the habit of using “fascist” as a catch-all term for any kind of authoritarian rule. In fact it is not so difficult to grasp what fascism is, providing one is willing to look outside liberal approaches to history.
After the Second World War and the horrors of the Holocaust, fascism was thrown into crisis. Attempts by fascist activists to revive the Nazi movement were met with scorn and derision by ordinary people across Europe. It was during this time that French fascists headed by Jean-Marie Le Pen decided they had to change track. They would no longer openly proclaim their dedication to Hitler and genocidal racism. Instead they would present themselves as nationalists, concerned about immigration and multiculturalism, in order to embed themselves within the political system. This did not mean dropping fascism, but hiding it. Le Pen’s Front National still has an army of thugs it uses to spread race hatred and terror, as does the BNP in Britain. Whenever the BNP manages to root itself locally, racist attacks and murders in that area rise. The strategy for anti-fascists is to unite the broadest possible forces against the Nazis, to expose and confound their attempts to pose as a legitimate democratic party, and to confront them on every front until they are driven out of the political mainstream and back into the gutter where they belong.
The roots of the British National Party (BNP) lie in the splinters of the National Front (NF), the main fascist organisation of the late 1970s. A mass movement led by the Anti Nazi League (ANL) rose up to confront the NF. By the early 1980s the fascist presence in Britain had been smashed into warring fragments.John Tyndall, a lifelong Nazi activist who once declared “Mein Kampf [Hitler’s political testament] is my bible”, launched the BNP in 1982 out of the merger of several of these groups. The party had little success throughout the 1980s, but hit the headlines in September 1993 when Derek Beackon was elected as the BNP’s first councillor in a by-election on the Isle of Dogs in east London.
Throughout this period the BNP was based in headquarters in Welling, south east London. The area soon found itself at the centre of a wave of racist attacks and murders – most notably that of Stephen Lawrence, who was stabbed to death by racists in April 1993. The ANL was relaunched and helped organise protests against the BNP. A 60,000 strong anti-fascist demonstration converged on the BNP’s Welling headquarters in October 1993, and Beackon himself was defeated at the 1994 council elections. Throughout this time the BNP was relatively open about being a fascist organisation.
In 1990 the European parliament’s committee on racism and xenophobia described the organisation as an “openly Nazi party”. Tyndall himself declared, “Many who feel that Hitler was right do not believe it is safe yet to state such views openly – but times will change.” Nick Griffin, who ousted Tyndall as BNP leader in 1999, was convicted of incitement to racial hatred in 1998 for publishing The Rune, an antisemitic magazine. During his trial Griffin stuck by his claims that the Nazi Holocaust had not taken place. “I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades,” he said in court. “I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria.” But once Griffin had won leadership of the BNP he was forced to take the party on a different course after Beackon’s defeat. Seeking to emulate the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen’s Front National in France, Griffin tried to hide the BNP’s fascist nature in order to appear respectable. This meant playing down the party’s overt racism and shifting the direction of its bile towards more “fashionable” targets such as muslims, and multicultural migrant workers.
It also meant a shift away from marching in the streets and open racist thuggery towards concentrating on winning elections. Despite these cosmetic changes, the party remains committed to fascism. In 2002 leading BNP member Mark Collett – one of Griffin’s key lieutenants – was secretly filmed stating his admiration for Hitler. “I’d never say this on camera, [but] the Jews have been thrown out of every country including England,” he said. “It’s not just persecution – there’s no smoke without fire.” And Griffin himself has spent his entire life on the fascist right, ever since attending NF meetings as a teenager in the 1970s. However much he tries to lie or dissemble about the BNP’s true aims, it remains a Nazi organisation dedicated to creating an “all white Britain”. And now with their friends at Combat 18, the National Front, the English, Welsh and scottish Defence Leagues, and a whole range of other hardline Nazis, we need to be fighting harder than ever for our fair, egalitarian democracy and society. By attending rallies and marches against intolerant fascist vermin like these, we are also standing up against their racism, sexism and homophobia.
The EDL has been touted as the street fighting wing of the BNP. Although both the EDL and the BNP deny such links, several of the EDL’s leading organisers are listed as BNP members. BNP supporters have also been spotted at recent EDL protests. But the growing anti-fascist movement is confronting the BNP and the EDL wherever they go. Anti-fascists have chased the EDL out of Birmingham and Harrow in the last couple of weeks. Thousands of young people – black, white and Asian – are fighting alongside trade unionists and other campaigners to stop the EDL.= and other Nazi organisations. Unite Against Fascism (UAF) will hold its annual conference on Saturday 13 February in central London. The conference will be crucial for all those who oppose the Nazis and want to stop them making gains – both in elections or in strength on the streets. The BNP has made some gains on the back of the economic crisis, anti-immigrant racism, Islamophobia and anger with mainstream politicians. But they have always been opposed – and the next six months will be key to building up that opposition.
The campaign to halt Nazi Nick Griffin’s ambition of winning a seat in the general election took off last Sunday. The BNP leader plans to stand in Barking, east London. The first Barking and Dagenham Unite Against Fascism day of action brought together 170 people, including local residents, trade unionists and political activists. They leafleted every house in the Alibon, Goresbrook and Parsloes wards. The Nazis have 12 councillors on the local council. “The BNP winning local council seats has made people more wary. It creates divisions,” Andrew Jones told Socialist Worker. He lives in Alibon ward, where the BNP have two out of three councillors. Police statistics show that when the BNP wins seats racist crime rises. In Barking’s Eastbury ward, racially motivated violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled after the election of the BNP’s Jeffrey Steed in 2006. Forty five racial incidents were reported in the following year. Local resident Marcia said, “The BNP work on people’s discontent, the lack of jobs and low status they suffer. “They say ‘Here is your scapegoat’, and point to black people. “The BNP’s latest leaflet talks about crime and has pictures of young white men who have been killed. It’s insidious. People will assume that they were killed by black people – but they weren’t. It plays on prejudices.” a local primary school teacher said, “We need to nip this in the bud, or it will escalate and lead to the destruction of communities.”
More than 1,200 supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) went on a violent rampage through Hanley in Stoke-on-Trent, last Saturday. Football hooligans, known fascists and anti-Muslim fanatics gathered in the city centre. Hundreds of local people also joined the EDL brawl. The British National Party (BNP) has hidden its support for previous EDL demonstrations. But this time leading party members, local and national, openly took part. On Friday night the words “Islam Scum” and “EDL” were daubed on the walls of a mosque in the Normacot area. And at the end of the demonstration hundreds of EDL supporters swept through an Asian area attacking homes, shops and cars. This was clearly a national mobilisation for the EDL. There were reports that transport came from the barracks of the Mercian regiment. As the EDL gathered, supporters chanted, “Muslim bombers off our streets.” But within a few hours it had become unquestionably racist. “If you hate all Pakis clap your hands”, they shouted. Weyman Bennett, joint secretary of Unite Against Fascism said, “EDL supporters attacked black and Asian people – and whites who they claim are race traitors. “This must never happen again. Racist and fascist thugs taking to the streets in such large numbers must be met with a mass movement that can drive them back into the sewer.” The violence was aided by the large turnout of organised football hooligans. The EDL’s main financial backer, Alan Lake, says they are a mass “that gets off their backsides and travels to a city and they are available before and after matches.” On Saturday EDL supporters ripped planks of wood and masonry from nearby buildings. They repeatedly attempted to attack anti-fascists, hurling bricks, firecrackers and bottles. The police had arrested 17 people by Tuesday morning. Seven men have been charged, the majority with racially or religiously aggravated disorder offences.
Those charged came from Cheshire, Yorkshire, Lancashire and Birmingham. On Saturday’s demonstration photojournalist Guy Smallman was hit by two bottles. He said, “We regularly see police surveillance teams on non-confrontational anti-war protests, but here they kept their distance.
“Most disturbing of all was the police’s apparent willingness to allow around 600 EDL supporters to march unaccompanied into a mixed residential area where they proceeded to smash cars and shop windows.” The EDL did not go unchallenged. A counter protest of around 500 students, trade unionists and local people – black, white and Asian – turned out to counter the EDL. Robby and Colin, two local black people, said “They think they speak for the people of Stoke, but they don’t. The BNP is using the recession and targeting vulnerable people.” Kevin, who came with the student delegation, said that the police had been telling students not to join the protest. He added, “Stoke is important for the BNP – they have eight councillors here. We need to show people that anti fascists are the majority”. Jason Hill, from the North Staffordshire Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, said, “The EDL’s racism and Islamophobia are not welcome here.” Trade unionists from the NASWUT, NUT, Unison, CWU and Unite attended the protest, as did local councillors. Steve Funnell, of North Staffordshire TUC, told a journalist, “Stoke has never recovered from Thatcher’s recession. “Many of the problems in our communities have not been addressed so it has become a breeding ground for organisations like the BNP and EDL.”
The British National Party is becoming a household name. In the process it is trying to appear more moderate and respectable. But it is not. Scratch the surface and you find the same old racist organisation it always was. It is run by hardline nazis who believe that the Holocaust did not happen. Its rule book remains firmly entrenched in the principles of racial superiority and the banning of racial integration. The BNP may have got cleverer but its real politics remain the same.; they are the same hateful, divisive nazi scum they have always been. The BNP is dedicated to imposing apartheid-style rule in Britain. It wants to create a system that is based on the nonsense that white people are superior to all others. Black and Asian people would become second-class citizens under the law. We must not ignore the BNP. Everyone who rejects the BNP's politics of hate has the duty to do everything they can to stop them. This section of the website is about arming people with the information they need to confront the BNP. The BNP would kick out all those people who were not born in Britain. What if every other country in the world kicked out the Brits? A staggering 5.5 million people would be sent back here – far more than would leave our shores. This includes 800,000 from Spain, most of whom are pensioners.
If non-white people were ordered out of Britain then the NHS would collapse overnight. 16% of nurses are from minority ethnic communities, as are 40% of new dentists and 58% of new doctors! The BNP would introduce apartheid into Britain. The BNP call for whites to be given first preference in housing, education and jobs. This is no different from apartheid South Africa, a racist regime which the BNP supported. Mixed-race relationships would be outlawed. The BNP constitution opposes any racial integration. Articles in BNP journals condemn mixed-race relationships as “mongrelising the white race”. The BNP’s answer to violent crime is to allow every household to have a gun. We kid you not. This barmy idea was in the BNP’s 2005 general election manifesto. The British National Party won two seats in last month’s European election. Nick Griffin, the party leader, was elected in the North West with 8% of the vote and Andrew Brons took a seat in Yorkshire and The Humber with 9.8%. The BNP succeeded because the other parties failed. While the BNP vote in those regions was actually lower than the last time round in 2004 the Labour vote dropped far more substantially. In Yorkshire and The Humber, the Labour vote fell from 413,213 in 2004 to 230,009. In the North West Labour’s vote went down from 576,388 to 336,831.
Griffin just sneaked in. In the North West only 2,500 more votes for the UK Independence Party or slightly over 5,000 more for the Greens would have deprived Griffin of a seat. Nationally the BNP vote share was 6.2%.That is a mere 1.3% more than in 2004. In terms of votes the BNP took 943,598 this time compared to 808,200 in 2004. The BNP did badly in the South East (4.4%), South West (3.9%), London (4.9%) and Wales (5.4%). Even in the East of England, where the party at one stage thought it might take a seat, it polled only 6.1%. In Scotland, where the BNP has never had much support, it came home with 2.5%. In the West Midlands the BNP’s 8.6% was not enough to allow Simon Darby, the deputy leader, to join his colleagues in Europe. Likewise the East Midlands, which only has five seats, gave the BNP 8.7%, far below the vote needed. In the North East, which sends just three MEPs to the European Parliament, the party never had a chance of winning one, but its 8.9% was a big increase on its previous vote. The strength of the BNP vote in a number of areas is a deep cause for concern and gives an indication of the key battlegrounds in next year’s local elections. The BNP polled 10% or more in 52 local authority areas, the highest being Barking and Dagenham where it took 19.5% of the vote.
This picture is even more disturbing when the UKIP vote is included. Almost as many UKIP voters voiced concern about immigration as BNP voters - many people who voted UKIP for Europe might vote BNP in a local election. There were also a number of local authorities where the BNP vote went up dramatically compared to 2004. Substantial increases in BNP votes took place in Wales but a change to the way the Welsh votes were counted means an exact comparison with 2004 is impossible. However, as we discuss in our regional reports on pages 22-24, there were also areas where the BNP vote froze or even dropped. Among these are Burnley, Pendle, Bradford, Dudley and Sandwell. This was the BNP’s biggest election effort ever. The party poured up to £0.5 million into the campaign, hoping the investment would yield all the funding to which MEPs are entitled and the chance to link up with nazis and fascists internationally. Against the fascist party was the biggest and most professional HOPE not hate campaign ever staged. They delivered 3.4 million newspapers and leaflets across the country in the two months leading up to the election. In the North West alone, 1.6 million HOPE not hate newspapers and leaflets were put out by approximately 1,200 supporters, an effort which dwarfed that of any of the political parties who contested the election.
In Yorkshire, 880,000 leaflets were distributed, including 200,000 targeting the large Muslim population in West and South Yorkshire. Across the Midlands 300,000 newspapers and leaflets were put out. Even in London, which was never one of their key priorities, about 300,000 pieces of literature were distributed, including 50,000 newspapers in Hackney and a similar number of localised leaflets in Barking and Dagenham. Another success of the campaign was our press work. Throughout the campaign they worked with the media to inform the public about the real face behind the BNP’s lies and racism. On the eve of poll email was sent out to almost 600,000 addresses, making it the largest single political email in British domestic political history. And above all, in a time when the credibility of all the political parties suffered because of the expenses scandal, thousands of people, many who have never campaigned politically before, got involved in the campaign. We were always faced with an uphill struggle. The European election, contested in most of the country with no coinciding local elections, and against the economic recession and an increasingly unpopular government presented a perfect storm for the BNP, even before the expenses scandal blew. Once that happened it was always a matter of damage limitation and one of our most important successes was in preventing the anti-establishment protest vote going to the BNP.
It is clear both from the results and from the extensive YouGov election day survey of voters that the BNP did not pick up the protest vote. The BNP hardly increased its share of the vote nationally and the YouGov survey demonstrated that the BNP only turned out its hardcore support. Those questioned had almost uniform views on race and immigration, indicating there had been no movement to the BNP of people who had more moderate views but wanted to cast a protest vote. Another success of this campaign was increasing the turnout of anti-BNP voters. Nick Griffin, in the North West, actually received the lowest percentage vote for the BNP in any of its key regions. In several cities, such as Manchester and Liverpool, the Labour share of the vote remained the same as 2004, bucking the national trend, suggesting that Labour managed to turn out a significant section of its traditional vote but also new voters, determined to stop the BNP. On election day Michael Crick of Newsnight was in Blackburn, an area of traditionally strong BNP support but where the local anti-BNP group had delivered the East Lancs version of the HOPE not hate newspaper to 56,000 of the 58,000 homes. Crick reported long queues of people, both Asian and white, at polling stations, many stating clearly that they were there to vote against the BNP.
There was also unusually high voting at the polling station closest to Manchester University, suggesting that students were coming out to vote against the BNP. Similarly, in Birmingham, while some traditional Labour voters were staying at home, the party’s support was boosted by the high turnout among the city’s minority communities. Two BNP MEPs are two too many. We believe that the HOPE not hate campaign limited the BNP gains (and almost prevented Griffin from winning in the North West) but now we must face the new challenge ahead. The BNP now has a platform and resources with which it can greatly expand its activities but they will also be under the spotlight as never before and their election has generated widespread anger and revulsion. Over 80,000 people have signed our “Not in my name” online petition, the vast majority totally new to us. Our job, to coin an organising phrase, is to turn this anger into hope and finally into action. But we cannot do this without the aid of fellow anti-fascists opposing racism, sexism, homophobia and fascism across Britain. We need your aid as much as possible especially this year; just 3.3% of the vote could get Griffin and his odious views into Parliament, which would be a disaster to our fair, equal democracy; especially as they work closely with and finance other far-right organisations such as the National Front.
Immediate withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan will be one of the primary themes of the British National Party’s general election campaign. Speaking on BNP television, Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, sets out a blatantly populist stall for the election, which he believes will be called in late February or very early March. Griffin hopes to exploit what he sees as an “enormous gap” between the views of the public and “politicians” on Afghanistan. The second main issue for the BNP, not surprisingly, will be “mass immigration and Islam in particular”, a subject at which he intends to go “hammer and tongs” to show the public that the BNP has not “gone soft”. He may also have an eye on limiting the damage to his party’s reputation among its racist supporters caused by his decision, forced by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), to open BNP membership to non-white people. The third theme will be Europe. While recognising that Europe plays a lesser role in the general election in the minds of the public, Griffin explains that it is very important for a section of the public that the BNP aims to attract, namely those voters who are not sure whether to vote BNP or for the UK Independence Party. As for the economy, the issue on which most people will focus, Griffin dismisses it on the grounds that it is “not feasible for us to get across the fact that a nationalist economic policy is the only way out of the mess”.
In other words, the BNP will go for votes by exploiting policies chosen for that purpose alone, rather than present a serious political programme to the electorate. Griffin appears to dismiss voters as too stupid to understand his economic arguments, though the reality is that the BNP’s mishmash of economic nationalism, fascism and opposition to trade would totally wreck the British economy. Griffin states that his party is not yet ready for the election, though the main leaflets have been designed. There is also some fundraising to be done, he admits, before moving on quickly to another subject. Money may well be a problem. The BNP went into the European election campaign in a dire financial state and spent large sums on its misnamed “Battle for Britain”. Before the election last June the party pledged that in the event of victory the party would contest every seat in the country in the general election. That would commit the party to £325,000 in candidates’ deposits alone, much of which would be lost as the BNP will not overcome the 5% threshold for return of deposits in most constituencies. Probably realising the foolishness of standing hundreds of no hopers, Griffin backtracked, grabbing the opportunity to blame the three-month freeze on recruitment of new party members that he had agreed as a result of the EHRC’s court case.
Exaggerating wildly as usual, Griffin claimed the EHRC had cost the BNP a potential £105,000 in membership fees from 3,000 people keen to join up. “Those lost funds would have allowed the BNP to drive its way through the quiet Christmas period and launch an impressive General Election campaign the likes of which have never been seen in Britain,” wrote Griffin in an email to supporters on 12 December. “As soon as we did make a breakthrough, the Equalities Commis-sion pounced in what was a carefully calculated effort to make the BNP unable to contest every seat in the country,” the arch conspiracy theorist continued. As a result the party had to “drastically scale back our General Election plans. … If you want to blame someone, blame the tax-guzzling foreigner Trevor Phillips,” said the racist, before going on to appeal to existing BNP members to upgrade their membership to “gold” for “a measly £30” or take out life membership for a more painful £465. One pot of money readily available to Griffin is the MEPs’ communications allowance for him and his fellow MEP, Andrew Brons. Each has £20,000 to spend on publicity about their work in the European Parliament and their constituency. While careful to acknowledge that the money cannot be used to promote the BNP, Griffin claims that when people hear of the two MEPs’ work, it will “have an effect”. The A3 folded glossy leaflets for the two constituencies will be ready for distribution “early in the new year”, revealed Griffin, providing “some cracking publicity”.
Leaflets will be an important part of the BNP election effort, but the BNP will not do telephone canvassing, Griffin promised, claiming that people do not like it. Instead BNP canvassers “will knock on doors”. Presumably he thinks voters are happier with a bunch of heavies at their front doors. Probably the real reasons the BNP has rejected telephone canvassing are that none of the sources of the necessary data would deal with the racist party and that the party’s canvassers sound even worse on the phone than on the doorstep. In choosing Afghanistan as one of his election themes, Griffin must hope that voters will overlook the contradiction with the party’s much repeated claims that Islam is trying to colonise Britain and Europe and impose Sharia, and that the Muslim community harbours terrorists. In his constituency newsletter Griffin denounces the war in Afghanistan arguing that British troops should only be sent to war “when the British people or British interests are being threatened”. Yet the BNP maintains that Islam has been engaged in a war on Western civilisation since its inception. Griffin lumps together the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ignoring the fact that, unlike the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan was a direct response to the terror attacks on the USA of 11 September 2001, with the aim, whether or not realistic, of preventing al-Qaeda using Afghanistan as an operational and training base.
Since then, Britain too has come under attack from al-Qaeda. Even where the individual terrorists were born in Britain, they were generally trained in or directed from Afghanistan or the Pakistan border area. There are good cases to be made that the war in Afghanistan may be unwinnable, or that Britain and the US have not committed sufficient resources, or that we should not support the Karzai administration, among other things, but it is unarguable that Islamist terrorism affects British people and British interests. Islamophobia is one of the guiding principles of the BNP except when it conflicts with the latest attempt to win votes, it seems. Rather than present a reasoned standpoint, Griffin resorts to emotion. Launching the party’s campaign to “Support our troops, bring them home” just before Christmas, Griffin described a “devastated, grieving mother” who spoke to him “recently” about the death of her “beautiful son” while serving in Afghanistan, and apparently implored Griffin to “help our boys out there or bring them home”. “These are the words now carved into my heart, the words of a grieving mother, words that I will carry with me to my grave and words that made me take a solemn oath to do every-thing in my power to honour, support and protect our fighting heroes who have been abandoned both on the battlefields of Afghanistan and back here at home,” gushed Griffin.
He went on to accuse “Brown, Cameron and Clegg” of being “evil leaders … liars and con artists [who] started and backed the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan …”. That none of Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg were leaders of their respective parties in 2001, and that Clegg has consistently opposed the war in Iraq, must have passed Griffin by in his excitement over a new cause for an appeal for money. Announcing a “daring and innovative strategy to expose the hypocrisy, lies and cover-ups relating to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Griffin promises “a wave of activism, publicity material and direct action” which “will send shockwaves through the old parties and the traitors within the media”. It will consist of four phases. Firstly a “full-colour well-designed 12-page brochure, detailing the crimes against our soldiers” will be sent to “every MP, MSP, MLA, and AM as well as every member of the House of Lords and also every registered journalist in the UK”. Secondly, the BNP will send “10,000 brochures to each key town and city in every one of The BNP’s 12 regions”. The third stage will be, wait for it, a “nationwide truth tour” using “our very own ‘bought and paid for’ professional advertising lorry”. That’s the “truth truck”, better known as the lie lorry, a vehicle that the BNP does not own but leases from the hardline anti-abortion campaigner Jim Dowson. The tour will be followed by BNP TV films.
Anyone who thinks they have read this before would be right. The campaign has been recycled, almost word for word, from the BNP’s “Racism cuts both ways” initiative of autumn 2008. The 12-page outrage-ously Islamophobic brochure on that occasion listed 167 people whom the BNP alleged had been murdered as a result of anti-white racism, although only in a handful of the cases was there any clear indication of a racial motive and in several the perpetrator was white not black. The BNP claims to be different. Too true. No other party would go into a general election on the back of racism, Islamophobia, a recycled clapped out campaign, nothing to say on the issues that really concern the electorate and a lead policy selected solely to pull votes from the UKIP.
The EDL stokes up violence and race hatred wherever it marches. It now seems that both sides of fascism – electoral work and street fighting – will target Stoke-on-Trent together this month. The fascist British National Party (BNP) is also focusing on the city. It had a press conferenceon January 15th which launched the BNP’s general and local election campaigns in the city. The BNP already has nine councillors in Stoke-On-Trent. But the potential to drive back the fascists was clearly shown last summer, when 20,000 people – mostly young, white local residents – attended a Love Music Hate Racism festival in Stoke. The Nazis have 12 councillors on the local in Barking council. The BNP winning local council seats has made people more wary - it creates divisions. Police statistics show that when the BNP wins seats racist and homophobic crime rises significantly. In Barking’s Eastbury ward, racist and homophobic violence, theft and criminal damage more than doubled after the election of the BNP’s Jeffrey Steed in 2006. Forty five racial incidents were reported in the following year. The fascists work on people’s discontent, the lack of jobs and low status they suffer. They say ‘Here is your scapegoat’, and point to black people. The BNP’s latest leaflet talks about crime and has pictures of young white men who have been killed. It’s insidious; people will assume that they were killed by black people – but they weren’t. It plays on prejudices. We need to nip this in the bud, or it will escalate and lead to the destruction of communities
Friday, 15 January 2010
Islam4UK ban is undemocratic
Alan Johnson's decision to ban al-Muhajiroun and its various incarnations (including Islam4UK) will no doubt be publicly welcomed by many of our tabloids – ironically the very same ones that have done so much in recent years to hype the activities of this minuscule group – but is banning the group really how a confident liberal democracy should be responding? To be sure, the overwhelming majority of British Muslims have been left greatly embarrassed and frustrated by al-Muhajiroun's continual publicity-seeking and frankly repulsive antics which have included holding a 9/11 commemoration meeting entitled "A Towering Day in History", shouting abuse at British soldiers returning from duty in Iraq, and declaring a "March for Sharia" through Trafalgar Square to expound on their vision of what Britain would look like under their interpretation of Islamic law. The statement they made regarding the Wooton Basset march did not mention the date of the proposed march and indeed the local Wiltshire police confirmed that they had not received any notification from any organisation asking permission to hold any such march. Furthermore, no one seemed to have stopped to ask how a tiny group of unemployed layabouts from the London area would be able to afford the train fare to Wootten Bassett, let alone have enough supporters on hand to carry coffins through the town.
Still, the very idea of such a demonstration was enough to send much of our media, including the so-called quality press, into a tailspin and play right into the hands of Islam4UK who must have marvelled at the amount of publicity they had managed to generate. For the patently evident goal of al-Muhajiroun and its off-shoots has been to seek to divide and polarise communities by inciting public opinion against Muslims. And for all their mock outrage at the activities of al-Muhajiroun, much of our media has been complicit in this mischief-making. It is true that a ban on al-Muhajiroun may temporarily deprive our newspapers of their favourite bogeymen, but for how long? In 2006, the government banned two previous outfits containing al-Muhajiroun elements, al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, but it was not long before the very same faces emerged behind new organisational names and carried on as usual from where they had left off. So, there is a very real question about how effective this ban will prove to be in practice. This in turn lends credence to the view that the move to ban al-Muhajiroun is perhaps more to do with domestic electoral considerations than intelligent and effective policy-making.
Al-Muhajiroun members openly denounce the "evils" of democracy and freedom. "Freedom go to hell" says one of their placards. The controversy over Wootton Bassett was a good opportunity to demonstrate to al-Muhajiroun and their sympathisers the benefits of these values in action. The appropriate way to deal with the actions of al-Muhajiroun members is surely transparently and through our legal system. If individuals are known to have incited violence then they should be prosecuted. But we should be very wary of giving our government the arbitrary power to ban entire organisations. It also sets a bad precedent. The Conservative party has already made clear that if they attain power they will ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, a party that is fiercely critical of the UK's foreign policies in the Middle East but is also an avowedly non-violent group. It increasingly appears that, given sustained media scaremongering, many of us may be prepared to see the criminalising of dissent.
Today, the British government will proscribe the Islamist organisation Islam4UK and gift its leader, Anjem Choudary, with the useful satisfaction of telling its "former" members, "See? I told you so." Choudary argues that this latest ban, one of a number that have been imposed on extremist groups he has been involved with, is a prima facie example of the narrow inadequacies and febrile delusions of liberal democracy. The annoying thing is that, according to his own limited and specific agenda anyway, he is right. Ostensibly, Islam4UK has been banned for the same reason as its former incarnations have been banned. People involved in Choudary's groups, which have been operating in Britain for years, previously under the leadership of Omar Bakri Mohammed, have gone on to be convicted of acts of terrorism. Choudary argues that the group should not be held responsible for the crimes of people who are no longer members. Yet logic dictates that since such a large proportion of former members become involved directly in terrorism, then Islam4UK and its proxies play a large part in their incitement. They do, of course. In the face of a slew of persuasive evidence, there can be no doubt of that.
Specifically, though, the timing of this latest ban is intimately connected with the group's claim that it was going to march through Wootton Bassett, which is situated near RAF Lyneham. The small Wiltshire town has come to prominence in recent years because its townspeople, on their own initiative, had begun paying silent tribute to the dead British servicemen whose bodies were driven through it as part of the grisly process of repatriation. Their act of simple respect attracted attention in the media. Why would it not? The Wootton Bassett tributes stood for something. That something, in turn, attracted the attention of Choudary, for whom the media, in its very hostility, is an important ally. Yet Choudary is not the first man to have alighted on the tributes at Wootton Bassett as a means of advertising his own agenda. Those who initiated the tributes, primarily the town's mayor, were keen to emphasise that theirs was not a political gesture, but a human one, signalling only individual sorrow for the young people who had lost their lives in far-off wars. They were making no statement about the wisdom or the justice of those wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet regimental standards started to appear in the crowds. People had to be asked to refrain from parading medals. An ex-serviceman started a petition, asking for Wootton Bassett's main street to be renamed Highway of Heroes. There was talk of the town being awarded the George Cross. Whether those who initiated the tributes liked it or not, their gesture was not always accepted on its own terms. In a quiet and still-dignified way, matters took on their own momentum, and the tributes were easy to interpret as expressing sympathy with military action. This was hardly a surprise. The Wootton Bassett tributes may have pretensions towards political neutrality. But they are inherently conservative, or at least inherently in tune with the needs of the establishment. They suggest that the role of the public is not to question the decisions of government, but merely to honour without complication the sacrifices of those who carry them out. All citizens of Britain have the right to support such humane passivity, or reject it. Choudary's showy rejection was hardly a surprise, despite all the expressions of shock and anger that it inspired.
None of this is pointed out in mitigation of Choudary's limited but successful attempt to co-opt Wootton Bassett into his own propaganda effort. The unwritten rule in the town was that theirs was a space for simple respect. Choudary wished to gatecrash that space, and publicise his own lack of simple respect by despoiling it. Liberal democracy enjoins people to let others get on with their own thing, uninterrupted, as much as possible, in theory, at least. Choudary, against liberal democracy, is very much against letting people get on with their own thing, uninterrupted, as much as possible. His crass but unanswerable point is that if liberal democracy were as good at fostering a multiplicity of views as it claims to be, then it wouldn't have such a problem with people like him, who make their free and inalienable choice to trample all over its conventions. Yet, the double-bind that Choudary perceives is real. Nothing could have made that more patently obvious than this week's decision by the European court, which condemned Britain's use of stop and search, under the Terrorism Act, as illegal. Again and again, Britain erodes democratic rights with the intention of defending them, the opposition generally supporting the government as it does so. Even though they are frustratingly simplistic, hopelessly partisan, horribly provocative and wholly destructive, Choudary's views, in this matter anyway, are not intellectually unsound.
Liberal democracy may be able to accommodate a wide range of viewpoints. But its operation ultimately rests on consensus. In that one respect, it bears a distant yet real resemblance to Choudary's dreamed-of Caliphate, in which society is stable because everyone adheres, at a fantastically prescriptive level, to exactly the same set of values. Islamists like Choudary, given the opportunity, are happy to explain that in the Caliphate all those problems that beset western individualist nations would vanish. No drinking, so no binge drinking. No abdication of respect for parents and other senior family members, so no crisis in care for the elderly. No female sexualisation, so no porn, no rape, no prostitution, no need for such ideologies as feminism. No charging of interest, so no volatile economic activity. An obligatory tithe for the poor, so no want. And so on. Islamists like Choudary, when asked to give a single example of a Muslim society that has actually achieved such splendid tidiness, will reel off centuries of examples of European-colonial or US-interventionist sabotage of Muslim states, reserving special contempt for the sponsored puppets who led Muslim countries under the connivance of Britain or the US or both, from Saddam to Gadaffi to Karzai and far beyond. It's a tribute to the robust attractions of liberal democracy that Choudary and his ilk do not have more success in peddling their abject tale of Muslim victimhood.
In Choudary's opinion, the British men who die in Afghanistan should not have been there at all. For him, this latest Afghan adventure is like all of the others, in which foreign powers try to impose their own ideologies on the country, in person or by proxy. Certainly, Afghanistan was invaded with the intention of establishing it as a liberal democracy. It is now clear that this was far more easily said than done, and it's time that was admitted. Men like Choudary should not be appeased. But when a town has to defend itself against the hijacking of simple, basic rituals for a variety of forms of political gain, as Wootton Bassett has, then something is not right. Choudary's views can be dismissed. But the other tensions in Wootton Bassett cannot be.
Still, the very idea of such a demonstration was enough to send much of our media, including the so-called quality press, into a tailspin and play right into the hands of Islam4UK who must have marvelled at the amount of publicity they had managed to generate. For the patently evident goal of al-Muhajiroun and its off-shoots has been to seek to divide and polarise communities by inciting public opinion against Muslims. And for all their mock outrage at the activities of al-Muhajiroun, much of our media has been complicit in this mischief-making. It is true that a ban on al-Muhajiroun may temporarily deprive our newspapers of their favourite bogeymen, but for how long? In 2006, the government banned two previous outfits containing al-Muhajiroun elements, al-Ghurabaa and the Saved Sect, but it was not long before the very same faces emerged behind new organisational names and carried on as usual from where they had left off. So, there is a very real question about how effective this ban will prove to be in practice. This in turn lends credence to the view that the move to ban al-Muhajiroun is perhaps more to do with domestic electoral considerations than intelligent and effective policy-making.
Al-Muhajiroun members openly denounce the "evils" of democracy and freedom. "Freedom go to hell" says one of their placards. The controversy over Wootton Bassett was a good opportunity to demonstrate to al-Muhajiroun and their sympathisers the benefits of these values in action. The appropriate way to deal with the actions of al-Muhajiroun members is surely transparently and through our legal system. If individuals are known to have incited violence then they should be prosecuted. But we should be very wary of giving our government the arbitrary power to ban entire organisations. It also sets a bad precedent. The Conservative party has already made clear that if they attain power they will ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, a party that is fiercely critical of the UK's foreign policies in the Middle East but is also an avowedly non-violent group. It increasingly appears that, given sustained media scaremongering, many of us may be prepared to see the criminalising of dissent.
Today, the British government will proscribe the Islamist organisation Islam4UK and gift its leader, Anjem Choudary, with the useful satisfaction of telling its "former" members, "See? I told you so." Choudary argues that this latest ban, one of a number that have been imposed on extremist groups he has been involved with, is a prima facie example of the narrow inadequacies and febrile delusions of liberal democracy. The annoying thing is that, according to his own limited and specific agenda anyway, he is right. Ostensibly, Islam4UK has been banned for the same reason as its former incarnations have been banned. People involved in Choudary's groups, which have been operating in Britain for years, previously under the leadership of Omar Bakri Mohammed, have gone on to be convicted of acts of terrorism. Choudary argues that the group should not be held responsible for the crimes of people who are no longer members. Yet logic dictates that since such a large proportion of former members become involved directly in terrorism, then Islam4UK and its proxies play a large part in their incitement. They do, of course. In the face of a slew of persuasive evidence, there can be no doubt of that.
Specifically, though, the timing of this latest ban is intimately connected with the group's claim that it was going to march through Wootton Bassett, which is situated near RAF Lyneham. The small Wiltshire town has come to prominence in recent years because its townspeople, on their own initiative, had begun paying silent tribute to the dead British servicemen whose bodies were driven through it as part of the grisly process of repatriation. Their act of simple respect attracted attention in the media. Why would it not? The Wootton Bassett tributes stood for something. That something, in turn, attracted the attention of Choudary, for whom the media, in its very hostility, is an important ally. Yet Choudary is not the first man to have alighted on the tributes at Wootton Bassett as a means of advertising his own agenda. Those who initiated the tributes, primarily the town's mayor, were keen to emphasise that theirs was not a political gesture, but a human one, signalling only individual sorrow for the young people who had lost their lives in far-off wars. They were making no statement about the wisdom or the justice of those wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yet regimental standards started to appear in the crowds. People had to be asked to refrain from parading medals. An ex-serviceman started a petition, asking for Wootton Bassett's main street to be renamed Highway of Heroes. There was talk of the town being awarded the George Cross. Whether those who initiated the tributes liked it or not, their gesture was not always accepted on its own terms. In a quiet and still-dignified way, matters took on their own momentum, and the tributes were easy to interpret as expressing sympathy with military action. This was hardly a surprise. The Wootton Bassett tributes may have pretensions towards political neutrality. But they are inherently conservative, or at least inherently in tune with the needs of the establishment. They suggest that the role of the public is not to question the decisions of government, but merely to honour without complication the sacrifices of those who carry them out. All citizens of Britain have the right to support such humane passivity, or reject it. Choudary's showy rejection was hardly a surprise, despite all the expressions of shock and anger that it inspired.
None of this is pointed out in mitigation of Choudary's limited but successful attempt to co-opt Wootton Bassett into his own propaganda effort. The unwritten rule in the town was that theirs was a space for simple respect. Choudary wished to gatecrash that space, and publicise his own lack of simple respect by despoiling it. Liberal democracy enjoins people to let others get on with their own thing, uninterrupted, as much as possible, in theory, at least. Choudary, against liberal democracy, is very much against letting people get on with their own thing, uninterrupted, as much as possible. His crass but unanswerable point is that if liberal democracy were as good at fostering a multiplicity of views as it claims to be, then it wouldn't have such a problem with people like him, who make their free and inalienable choice to trample all over its conventions. Yet, the double-bind that Choudary perceives is real. Nothing could have made that more patently obvious than this week's decision by the European court, which condemned Britain's use of stop and search, under the Terrorism Act, as illegal. Again and again, Britain erodes democratic rights with the intention of defending them, the opposition generally supporting the government as it does so. Even though they are frustratingly simplistic, hopelessly partisan, horribly provocative and wholly destructive, Choudary's views, in this matter anyway, are not intellectually unsound.
Liberal democracy may be able to accommodate a wide range of viewpoints. But its operation ultimately rests on consensus. In that one respect, it bears a distant yet real resemblance to Choudary's dreamed-of Caliphate, in which society is stable because everyone adheres, at a fantastically prescriptive level, to exactly the same set of values. Islamists like Choudary, given the opportunity, are happy to explain that in the Caliphate all those problems that beset western individualist nations would vanish. No drinking, so no binge drinking. No abdication of respect for parents and other senior family members, so no crisis in care for the elderly. No female sexualisation, so no porn, no rape, no prostitution, no need for such ideologies as feminism. No charging of interest, so no volatile economic activity. An obligatory tithe for the poor, so no want. And so on. Islamists like Choudary, when asked to give a single example of a Muslim society that has actually achieved such splendid tidiness, will reel off centuries of examples of European-colonial or US-interventionist sabotage of Muslim states, reserving special contempt for the sponsored puppets who led Muslim countries under the connivance of Britain or the US or both, from Saddam to Gadaffi to Karzai and far beyond. It's a tribute to the robust attractions of liberal democracy that Choudary and his ilk do not have more success in peddling their abject tale of Muslim victimhood.
In Choudary's opinion, the British men who die in Afghanistan should not have been there at all. For him, this latest Afghan adventure is like all of the others, in which foreign powers try to impose their own ideologies on the country, in person or by proxy. Certainly, Afghanistan was invaded with the intention of establishing it as a liberal democracy. It is now clear that this was far more easily said than done, and it's time that was admitted. Men like Choudary should not be appeased. But when a town has to defend itself against the hijacking of simple, basic rituals for a variety of forms of political gain, as Wootton Bassett has, then something is not right. Choudary's views can be dismissed. But the other tensions in Wootton Bassett cannot be.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Muslims are evil? What about Christian Voice?
If I had a penny for every single time I heard the phrase "Muslims are taking over Britain and want to impose sharia law on us" I would be writing from the swimming pool of my Spanish villa. Of course it's a lot of nonsense, but the odious Islam4UK has apparently "proven" this to the equally shady far-right. There is something the far-right forget about Britain's Christian culture though. Firstly, Christianity is an import from the Middle East, and secondly, there are extremists in Christianity as well; we call them fundamentalists in the Western world, but they are essentially extremists just like Islamic extremists are. Radicalist terrorism exist in all religions - but they are only a psychotic minority that do not represent the majority of religious people. As an atheist I could possibly be wrong; but ask any Christians who know about Christian Voice, and they will argue that it doesn't represent the majority of Christians.
The leader of Christian Voice is Stephen Green, who converted from Anglicanism to fundamentalist Christianity, and now attends an Assemblies of God Church. In the early 1990s Green was a prominent campaigner against homosexuality through the Conservative Family Campaign, and wrote a book called The Sexual Dead-End giving his opinions in detail. On 2 September 2006, Green was arrested in Cardiff at the city's Mardi Gras for distributing disruptive pamphlets. On 28 September 2006, the CPS decided not to prosecute Green because there was insufficient evidence; South Wales Police said that this did not "challenge the legality" of his arrest. Christian Voice opposes abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce and safer sex education. Additionally it supports the death penalty and does not recognise the concept of marital rape. The group has called for British law to be based on the Bible. In a press release announcing a CV pamphlet, Green describes Islam as "a counterfeit rather than a logical continuation of Judaism and Christianity". Green has expressed support for the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill (2009) and it's associated penalty of death, claiming "The Bible calls for the ultimate penalty for sodomy...A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation's children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours." Christian Voice also campaigned against gender recognition law, describing it as legislating a lie.
Christian Voice claims abortion is the wilful murder of a living human being and compares it to the Holocaust. The group wants to overturn the law on marital rape, claiming that the promises given by a man and woman to each other during the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer establish a binding consent to sexual intercourse. Since attempting to censor Jerry Springer: The Opera, the group has received increased coverage in the national media, although this has not always been to their advantage. After the appearance of Green on Question Time in September 2005, the group was condemned by a number of other church bodies, including the Rev Dr David Peel, then Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church. On 24 June 2005, Christian Voice's bankers, The Co-operative Bank, told the organisation to take its account elsewhere as Christian Voice's stance on homosexuality was in conflict with the bank's ethical policies of diversity. The Gay Times awarded an ethical corporate stance award to Co-operative Bank in response to this move. In response to this, Christian Voice encouraged a boycott of the bank Shortly after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in August 2005, killing over 1600 residents and rendering hundreds of thousands homeless, Green issued a statement claiming that this was the result of God's wrath and had brought "purity" to the city.
In November 2008, following the failed private prosecution by Emily Mapfuwa over the display of a foot-high statue of Jesus with a phallus in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead, Stephen Green urged Christians to "create public disorder if [they] wish such a case to proceed in future", and claimed that the artwork in question would "not survive being put on public display again." On 8 January 2009, Christian Voice complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Atheist Bus Campaign's adverts on 800 buses across England, Scotland and Wales. Obviously then, ramming Christianity down someone's throat is fine, but imposing atheism is bullying to them. This rightly earned Stephen Green a mention in the Arseholes and Twats of the British Isles feature in the satirical publication Viz in 2008. In January 2009, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that an advertisement placed in the New Statesman by Christian Voice breached advertising regulations on accuracy by asserting that HPV vaccines would make young people sterile. Christian Voice had predicted the ruling and responded "requiring the substantiation of a future prediction in an opinion piece is preposterous and an infringement of freedom of speech."
No true Christian is as ignorant, intolerant and bigoted as these fascist cretins; I know because I was brought up a Christian. My family are Christians, many people I know are. Should we commence in tarring them with the same brush as Christian Voice? Should we hate all Christians just because of the actions of a psychotic minority? Of course not, so why should it be different for any other religion. I know a handful of Muslims and they're not really that different from the rest of us. Of course there will always be an insignificant amount of fundamentalists in all religions attempting to marginalise everyone else, but they usually become despised and eventually isolate themselves from this liberal, progressive modern society. So the next time British Nazi Party leader says "Islam is a cancer which must be removed" because it "breeds terrorism" ask his followers about Christian Voice. Is it fine for one group of extremists to preach hatred and not another, Mr. Griffin? Mind you, this is the same former National Front organiser who aided the NF in attempting to incite race wars. Well I suppose it's back to the drawing board I guess....
The leader of Christian Voice is Stephen Green, who converted from Anglicanism to fundamentalist Christianity, and now attends an Assemblies of God Church. In the early 1990s Green was a prominent campaigner against homosexuality through the Conservative Family Campaign, and wrote a book called The Sexual Dead-End giving his opinions in detail. On 2 September 2006, Green was arrested in Cardiff at the city's Mardi Gras for distributing disruptive pamphlets. On 28 September 2006, the CPS decided not to prosecute Green because there was insufficient evidence; South Wales Police said that this did not "challenge the legality" of his arrest. Christian Voice opposes abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce and safer sex education. Additionally it supports the death penalty and does not recognise the concept of marital rape. The group has called for British law to be based on the Bible. In a press release announcing a CV pamphlet, Green describes Islam as "a counterfeit rather than a logical continuation of Judaism and Christianity". Green has expressed support for the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill (2009) and it's associated penalty of death, claiming "The Bible calls for the ultimate penalty for sodomy...A Parliamentarian in Uganda is trying to protect his nation's children. The House of Commons of the United Kingdom is trying to corrupt ours." Christian Voice also campaigned against gender recognition law, describing it as legislating a lie.
Christian Voice claims abortion is the wilful murder of a living human being and compares it to the Holocaust. The group wants to overturn the law on marital rape, claiming that the promises given by a man and woman to each other during the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer establish a binding consent to sexual intercourse. Since attempting to censor Jerry Springer: The Opera, the group has received increased coverage in the national media, although this has not always been to their advantage. After the appearance of Green on Question Time in September 2005, the group was condemned by a number of other church bodies, including the Rev Dr David Peel, then Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church. On 24 June 2005, Christian Voice's bankers, The Co-operative Bank, told the organisation to take its account elsewhere as Christian Voice's stance on homosexuality was in conflict with the bank's ethical policies of diversity. The Gay Times awarded an ethical corporate stance award to Co-operative Bank in response to this move. In response to this, Christian Voice encouraged a boycott of the bank Shortly after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in August 2005, killing over 1600 residents and rendering hundreds of thousands homeless, Green issued a statement claiming that this was the result of God's wrath and had brought "purity" to the city.
In November 2008, following the failed private prosecution by Emily Mapfuwa over the display of a foot-high statue of Jesus with a phallus in the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art, Gateshead, Stephen Green urged Christians to "create public disorder if [they] wish such a case to proceed in future", and claimed that the artwork in question would "not survive being put on public display again." On 8 January 2009, Christian Voice complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Atheist Bus Campaign's adverts on 800 buses across England, Scotland and Wales. Obviously then, ramming Christianity down someone's throat is fine, but imposing atheism is bullying to them. This rightly earned Stephen Green a mention in the Arseholes and Twats of the British Isles feature in the satirical publication Viz in 2008. In January 2009, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that an advertisement placed in the New Statesman by Christian Voice breached advertising regulations on accuracy by asserting that HPV vaccines would make young people sterile. Christian Voice had predicted the ruling and responded "requiring the substantiation of a future prediction in an opinion piece is preposterous and an infringement of freedom of speech."
No true Christian is as ignorant, intolerant and bigoted as these fascist cretins; I know because I was brought up a Christian. My family are Christians, many people I know are. Should we commence in tarring them with the same brush as Christian Voice? Should we hate all Christians just because of the actions of a psychotic minority? Of course not, so why should it be different for any other religion. I know a handful of Muslims and they're not really that different from the rest of us. Of course there will always be an insignificant amount of fundamentalists in all religions attempting to marginalise everyone else, but they usually become despised and eventually isolate themselves from this liberal, progressive modern society. So the next time British Nazi Party leader says "Islam is a cancer which must be removed" because it "breeds terrorism" ask his followers about Christian Voice. Is it fine for one group of extremists to preach hatred and not another, Mr. Griffin? Mind you, this is the same former National Front organiser who aided the NF in attempting to incite race wars. Well I suppose it's back to the drawing board I guess....
Monday, 28 December 2009
Muslims must not pay for Europe's identity crisis
It seems that the targeting of Muslims and Islam has become a kind of national theater in France. Unlike theater, however, the disturbing trend can, and will turn ugly – in fact to a degree it already has – if the French government doesn’t get a grip on reality. The world, including France, is a complex, multifaceted and fascinatingly diverse place; it cannot be co-opted to fit national specificities determined by a group of irritable far right racists with a distorted interpretation of themselves and others. Unfortunately, France is not alone; it merely highlights the most obvious manifestation of growing anti-Muslim sentiments throughout Europe. Unearthing the reasons behind the disturbing phenomena is hardly an easy task, for it arguably requires a greater examination of the political, economic and social woes of European states than it does of the ‘shortcomings’ of Islam. Islam is a great religion in many respects; it has endured for over 1400 years. Its membership is never confined by skin color, culture, political ideology or geographic boundaries. Its views of antiquity, on equality, women rights and peace are considered progressive even by today’s standards. The detractors of Islam fail to see all this. If Islam is dissected politically or ‘academically’, the investigation is done for the sake of destroying its repute, and discrediting or humiliating its followers.
The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque’s minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism. These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries, which guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self-expression and freedom of speech. In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord in the country. The Washington Post reported on December 19 that Bilal Mosque, in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. “Two pig's ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig's snout dangled from the doorknob. ‘White power’ and ‘Sieg heil’ were spray-painted on one side…and ‘France for the French’ on the other.” Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain’s first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the “Jews of Europe”, and that many British Muslims feel like “aliens in their own country”.
While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists - who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states – insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss. There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it’s one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a byproduct of misguided and unchecked globalization, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal. The European Union, which started as a purely economic body has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organization that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of it. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.
Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need for constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions – unlike the subjugation of targeting of other groups with political or economic clout. But is their more to this? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding “no”. Only 9 percent of Turkish citizens – a country with a Muslim majority – shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community, and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs.
Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, and nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs. Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself, rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country’s Immigration Minister, stated on December 16 that Muslim veils will be grounds of denying citizenships and long-term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a ‘national identity campaign’ for ensuring an exclusive identity of France - one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims. Sarkozy, Besson, and Europe’s rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies. Radicalization is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervor throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with the savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe’s woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.
The Swiss People’s Party (SVP) may claim that their commitment is to keep Switzerland secular, devoid of symbols of oppression (as in a mosque’s minaret), but this only sounds like incoherent blabber and reflects nothing but a growing tendency towards racism, intolerance and ethnocentrism. These trends are glaring violations of the liberal philosophies associated with European countries, which guarantee individual and collective rights, including those of self-expression and freedom of speech. In France, the phenomenon is protracted and more dangerous. Considering that France is the home of five million French Muslims, rightwing tendencies threaten future discord in the country. The Washington Post reported on December 19 that Bilal Mosque, in the tranquil French town of Castres was desecrated by unknown assailants. “Two pig's ears and a poster of the French flag stapled to the door; a pig's snout dangled from the doorknob. ‘White power’ and ‘Sieg heil’ were spray-painted on one side…and ‘France for the French’ on the other.” Here, one must recall the alarming words of Britain’s first Muslim minister, Shahid Malik. Himself a victim of hate crimes, Malik lamented a year and a half ago that many Muslims feel targeted like the “Jews of Europe”, and that many British Muslims feel like “aliens in their own country”.
While Many Muslims share the same feeling of nationalism and patriotism in their homelands in Europe, rightwing racists - who are unfortunately becoming a dominant force in shaping public views in various European states – insist on a very narrow definition of what makes a French, a British, a German or a Swiss. There is indeed an identity crisis that is real and frightening. And it’s one that is not engulfing Europe alone, but also affects and in some instances has devastated many cultures all over the world. While it is a byproduct of misguided and unchecked globalization, in the case of Europe itself the issue is very national and very personal. The European Union, which started as a purely economic body has morphed into a political and pan-nationalist organization that is attempting, by accident or design, to define a united Europe and a prototypical European. This has raised fears of the loss of national identities or whatever remains of it. Expectedly, it is the politically underrepresented, socially marginalized and economically disadvantaged groups that often pay the price of this sort of national resurgence.
Targeting Muslims is a common denominator that now unifies a great proportion of European political elites and media. The reasons are numerous and obvious. Some European countries are at war (which they have chosen) in various Muslim countries; desperate and failed politicians are in need for constant distractions from their own failures and mishaps; associating Islam with terrorism is more than an acceptable intellectual diatribe, a topic of discussion that has occupied more radio and television airtime than any other; also, pushing Muslims around seems to have few political repercussions – unlike the subjugation of targeting of other groups with political or economic clout. But is their more to this? A 2007-08 Gallup poll asked the following question: does religion occupy an important place in your life? The vast majority in Western European countries answered with a resounding “no”. Only 9 percent of Turkish citizens – a country with a Muslim majority – shared the popular view. Most European Muslims strongly identify with their religion, which has preserved their sense of community, and helped maintain a degree of cultural cohesion and a semblance of collective identity at a time when many in Europe are losing theirs.
Muslims must not be blamed for this loss, and nor should they be punished, derided or targeted for daring to hold onto their beliefs. Returning again to France, what is most alarming about the anti-Muslim measures is that they are largely led by the government itself, rather than a fanatical group of disenchanted ideologues. Eric Besson, the country’s Immigration Minister, stated on December 16 that Muslim veils will be grounds of denying citizenships and long-term residence. Besson was only echoing the disquieting policies of conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy who has started a ‘national identity campaign’ for ensuring an exclusive identity of France - one that is occupied with the targeting of immigrants, particularly Muslims. Sarkozy, Besson, and Europe’s rightwing and far right politicians must understand the possible ramifications if they continue to press with their reckless and alienating policies. Radicalization is an unavoidable offshoot of group alienation, which is sadly being used to further fuel the anti-immigrant fervor throughout the continent. It is a vicious cycle, the blame for which lies squarely with the savvy politicians and their obvious agendas. As for those who insist on blaming Islam for Europe’s woes, they should really find another pastime; the self-indulgent game is too hazardous and must stop.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Switzerland: A Divided Land?
The Swiss, known for cheese, Alps, watches, chocolate and secret bank accounts, at least two of which are full of holes, have now added a sixth important product: intolerance. 57.5 percent of its 8 million population, or of those who went to the polls, voted to forbid minarets next to Muslim mosques. As nearly everyone agreed, the minarets themselves were not so important. The 400,000 Muslims living in Switzerland now have only four minarets. Their architecture disturbs almost no-one, nor do muezzins call loudly over the rooftops five times a day. The minarets are symbols, and while few who voted for the ban said so openly, what many thought was: “There are too many damned furriners in our Christian republic anyway. We can’t even understand their foreign lingo. Keep ‘em out!” Several sad ironies are involved. One is linguistic. Switzerland has four official languages to begin with, which should breed tolerance, especially since German-speaking Swiss, and it is they who voted most frequently against the minarets, have a folksy dialect which sounds rather quaint to people in Germany but is so difficult to understand that Swiss films shown there require sub-titles. Variety in cultures is a good thing, intelligent people generally believe, but it involves tolerance toward other people’s cultures.
Another ironic note is more tragic. Christianity is no constitutional requirement in Switzerland; religious freedom is supposed to be the rule. But it was Swiss authorities equally determined to keep their country Christian who turned away Jewish refugees from neighboring Germany during the Hitler years, resulting in death to many or most of them. This shameful episode, though most other countries at that time were equally guilty, makes the decision by over half of Swiss voters especially disturbing, and not only because it was a victory for the far-right Swiss People’s Party. Like cheese and watches, such intolerance promises to be an export product whose political effects recall the crippling medical effects of thalidomide, or Contergan. And far too many in other countries are overly willing to buy this poison. Among those rejoicing were the Berlusconi backers in Italy. A leader of the government party Lega Nord fantasized for the media: "Flying high above a Europe now almost fully Islamized is the flag of courageous Switzerland, which wishes to remain Christian.”
The daughter of that old racist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who now heads his Front national in France, expressed her warm satisfaction. Geerd Wilders, the handsome blond and rabid Dutch film-maker currently building a party based on Islamophobia, said: “We need a referendum like that in the Netherlands!” His brother-in-arms in the Danish People’s Party echoed his sentiments. In Austria, England, Spain and elsewhere there were fanatic nationalists, racists and neo-fascists, both the jackbooted thugs and the suave, elegant wheeler-dealers, to welcome this smoke signal from the Alps. They were the extremists, of course, rarely with anything like majorities. But their numbers were often tending upward. Many German politicians were undoubtedly horrified. Others, thinking of German history or counting the growing numbers of Muslim voters in urban centers, were careful and quiet. Few were exuberant. But some, while not explicitly approving the referendum results, betrayed their inner thoughts. Referring to Swiss voters, Wolfgang Bosbach, a key leader of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said: “Their worries must be taken seriously!” He was quickly slapped down, but his message got through even the thickest shaven skulls.
Muslimphobia is not unknown in Germany. In one borough of Berlin enraged demonstrations, egged on by a Christian Democratic candidate, opposed building a mosque and modest minaret. Now completed and in use, it causes no troubles to anyone. A menacing rally in Cologne against a new mosque was prevented by a counterdemonstration of almost all parties, unions and religious groups, but its sponsors did manage to form a new local party and win city council seats for their unholy crusade. The list of those warning against the fictional monster of Islamization, recalling “Yellow Peril” campaigns on the US West Coast, contained a few surprisingly prominent names. If unemployment figures in Germany grow worse and social assistance is further cut by the new government, part of any angry protests can be misdirected, not against those guilty of the misery, the banks, corporations and politicians obliged to them, indeed, their whole system, but instead, as so often in history, against those who are suffering even more. Eighty years ago it was the Jews who were blamed, discriminated against and then murdered. The Jewish community today, although its size has increased in recent years, is hardly large or conspicuous enough to serve this purpose sufficiently. It is still on the neo-Nazi list, but the main attacks, usually verbal thus far, are directed against Muslim communities, which include about 2 million people of Turkish descent, but also many Kurds, Africans and Arabs from Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and other areas. This problem for immigrants is clearly international, involving long-lasting pressures of northern and western economies and cultures on those of the south and east. Experience in many countries indicates that large immigrant groups usually can integrate into their host country but the process often lasts two or three generations. Until then their differing appearance and culture, and the results of poverty and oppression, are all too often utilized to prevent unity among poor people and working people.
Even if the referendum vote should be reversed by the Swiss Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, to which all European countries belong, even Switzerland, the 57.5 percent result of those who bothered to vote has done damage enough to any Swiss reputation for tolerance, while encouraging the most dangerous elements of political life in all Europe.
Another ironic note is more tragic. Christianity is no constitutional requirement in Switzerland; religious freedom is supposed to be the rule. But it was Swiss authorities equally determined to keep their country Christian who turned away Jewish refugees from neighboring Germany during the Hitler years, resulting in death to many or most of them. This shameful episode, though most other countries at that time were equally guilty, makes the decision by over half of Swiss voters especially disturbing, and not only because it was a victory for the far-right Swiss People’s Party. Like cheese and watches, such intolerance promises to be an export product whose political effects recall the crippling medical effects of thalidomide, or Contergan. And far too many in other countries are overly willing to buy this poison. Among those rejoicing were the Berlusconi backers in Italy. A leader of the government party Lega Nord fantasized for the media: "Flying high above a Europe now almost fully Islamized is the flag of courageous Switzerland, which wishes to remain Christian.”
The daughter of that old racist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who now heads his Front national in France, expressed her warm satisfaction. Geerd Wilders, the handsome blond and rabid Dutch film-maker currently building a party based on Islamophobia, said: “We need a referendum like that in the Netherlands!” His brother-in-arms in the Danish People’s Party echoed his sentiments. In Austria, England, Spain and elsewhere there were fanatic nationalists, racists and neo-fascists, both the jackbooted thugs and the suave, elegant wheeler-dealers, to welcome this smoke signal from the Alps. They were the extremists, of course, rarely with anything like majorities. But their numbers were often tending upward. Many German politicians were undoubtedly horrified. Others, thinking of German history or counting the growing numbers of Muslim voters in urban centers, were careful and quiet. Few were exuberant. But some, while not explicitly approving the referendum results, betrayed their inner thoughts. Referring to Swiss voters, Wolfgang Bosbach, a key leader of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, said: “Their worries must be taken seriously!” He was quickly slapped down, but his message got through even the thickest shaven skulls.
Muslimphobia is not unknown in Germany. In one borough of Berlin enraged demonstrations, egged on by a Christian Democratic candidate, opposed building a mosque and modest minaret. Now completed and in use, it causes no troubles to anyone. A menacing rally in Cologne against a new mosque was prevented by a counterdemonstration of almost all parties, unions and religious groups, but its sponsors did manage to form a new local party and win city council seats for their unholy crusade. The list of those warning against the fictional monster of Islamization, recalling “Yellow Peril” campaigns on the US West Coast, contained a few surprisingly prominent names. If unemployment figures in Germany grow worse and social assistance is further cut by the new government, part of any angry protests can be misdirected, not against those guilty of the misery, the banks, corporations and politicians obliged to them, indeed, their whole system, but instead, as so often in history, against those who are suffering even more. Eighty years ago it was the Jews who were blamed, discriminated against and then murdered. The Jewish community today, although its size has increased in recent years, is hardly large or conspicuous enough to serve this purpose sufficiently. It is still on the neo-Nazi list, but the main attacks, usually verbal thus far, are directed against Muslim communities, which include about 2 million people of Turkish descent, but also many Kurds, Africans and Arabs from Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and other areas. This problem for immigrants is clearly international, involving long-lasting pressures of northern and western economies and cultures on those of the south and east. Experience in many countries indicates that large immigrant groups usually can integrate into their host country but the process often lasts two or three generations. Until then their differing appearance and culture, and the results of poverty and oppression, are all too often utilized to prevent unity among poor people and working people.
Even if the referendum vote should be reversed by the Swiss Supreme Court or the European Court of Human Rights, to which all European countries belong, even Switzerland, the 57.5 percent result of those who bothered to vote has done damage enough to any Swiss reputation for tolerance, while encouraging the most dangerous elements of political life in all Europe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
