Those who call the EDL racist are dangerously missing the point
Confronted with something completely new, people translate it back into language they understand. Hence the sign Smash the racist EDL! Good sentiment but claptap. Racist movements do not, as a rule, have signs saying Black and White Unite! or insist on multi-racial recruitment, or pick fights with real racists and physically toss them out, all of which the EDL has done.
That doesn’t make it nice. ”They said I deserved to be raped in the head because of my last name”, said a young lady on the fringes of the protest. I believe her; Alexander Melagrou-Hitchens and Nick Cohen, two sources I trust, have reported similar things. Being non-racist or anti-racist doesn’t make the EDL innocuous but it can make it more dangerous. What we might be seeing in real time is the birth of a truly British form of fascism.
On the BBC Radio 4 show ‘Hecklers’, Gita Sahgal takes on the combined force of the Islamists Tahmina Saleem (Islamic Society Britain), Tariq Ramadan (freelance Islamist), Nazir Ahmed (House of Lords), Moazzam Begg (Cage Prisoners) and Daud Abdullah (Muslim Council of Britain)
It is now a well known fact that some of the people responsible for delivering the government’s Prevent programme are actually opposed to its core objectives. These people can be best described as ‘anti-Prevent Prevent leads’.
One such individual is Shaban Siddik. He was recently appointed by OSCT (Home Office) as the Prevent Manager for Ealing Council. He previously worked at Harrow Council as a Prevent Coordinator. Here are the highlights of his Prevent career so far:
Supporting, promoting and working closely with Harrow Mosque. This institutions website promotes: Islamic Forum of Europe (an Islamist organisation that wants to replace UK Democracy with Shariah law), YMO (an IFE youth group), MCB, Islam Channel and Islam Expo.
Setting up a ‘Muslim Youth Skills’ group and inviting Yvonne Ridley (Talibanette and Press TV broadcaster) to speak at its opening ceremony.
This is a cross-post by Raziq (A former member of Hizb ut-Tahrir)
In light of the recent media revelations about Baroness Warsi’s links to Abid Hussain, and his subsequent denial of any involvement with Hizb ut-Tahrir, this short piece is aimed at clarifying his previous links to the group.
Abid Hussain (still taken from the 1995 BBC Documentary on Hizb ut-Tahrir ‘Public Eye’)
I knew Abid in the 90’s when he was involved with Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). Back then he used to attend all of the group’s rallies & events, and was well known in HT circles as being a committed activist. In the mid-90’s, he also resided at the London School of Shariah in Tottenham for a while. At the time, the School of Shariah was the hub of all HT activity in the UK. This was when HT was under the leadership of Omar Bakri Mohammad. His brother Mohammad Nawaz Khan was and still is a senior member of HT. He was also the former spokesman of HT in Pakistan (where the group is now banned). Abid is also related to Baroness Warsi’s current husband “Iftikhar Azam”.
Everyone remembers the scene in Life of Brian where the Campaign for a free Gallilee and the People’s front of Judea are locked in a fistfight. One speaker stands up and appeals “We mustn’t fight each other. Sureley we should be united against the common enemy!” and everyone replies “The Judean People’s Front!”. In what might be called the islamocritical or islamorealist scene, I have been noticing something similar. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have had that go like this: Rightist: “Oh the Left are just a bunch of cowardly milquetoast nihilists. They don’t really believe in women’s rights/freedom of expression, they just use these as a way of attacking civilization and they’ll drop them at the first sign of a real struggle”. Leftist: “Oh the Right are just a bunch of racist, knuckledragging Neanderthalers. They don’t really believe in women’s rights/freedom of expression, they just use these as a way to attack the left, and they’ll drop them the instant they’ve got what they want.” There’s a certain element of truth in both stereotypes, as there is in all stereotypes, but there is also a great deal of falsity. And I am getting well and truly sick of it.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to takes some of the more dogmatic left-wing commentators seriously these days, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Whether it be Seamus Milne at the Guardian, Robert Fisk at the Independent or Mehdi Hassan at the New Statesman, their op-ed pieces tend to follow the same predictable rules, which are:
a) The West is always wrong
b) Outspoken enemies of the west always deserve our sympathy
c) The vast majority are on our side
“The easiest and quickest way to expose the hypocrisy of our government’s, and the wider western world’s, professed support for democracy and freedom in the Arab world is to say just two words: Saudi Arabia.”
Then, after pasting an extract from the BBC’s website about the Saudi crackdown on internal protestors, Mehdi states:
How will Britain cure itself of its social ills? Baroness Warsi has the answer: By becoming more Christian.
Writing in today’s Daily Telegraph, she says: “We need to create a country where people don’t feel like they have to leave religion at the door. That means being proud of Christianity, not downgrading it. It means encouraging people to say that their faith inspires what they do.
Lady Warsi said it was a “mistake to assume that you compromise your identity the more you try to understand others”. “The stronger your understanding of your neighbour, the stronger your own religious identity becomes.
Warsi sounds quite sensible in print. But it is on televised appearances where she is not afraid to be far more candid about what she really means:
If a person denies clear evidence of racism, defends a racist, and attacks a leading anti-racist institution, is it fair to conclude that they are in fact a racist?
It is a genuine question. The answer in some cases will, undoubtedly, be yes. However, others may find themselves in the position of supporting a racist and denying their racism, and attacking anti-racist organisations: because they believe that a little racism is necessary, in furtherance of a greater political cause. Those people are not racists themselves. They are merely tolerating and facilitating racism, making it more difficult to challenge, giving it an alibi.
Yet others may honestly fail to recognise racism, or may not believe the evidence of racism. It is quite easy to tell who those innocent endorsers of racism are. They’re the ones who, once they realise their error, are the keenest to correct it, publicly.
obviously, a great deal has been written about the riots to date and a great deal of predictable outpouring has also taken place. what i wanted to offer to this debate is, however, along more behavioural lines.
i have for some time been aware of the powerful analytical frameworks for bio-psycho-social systems developed by the american psychologist dr clare graves and systematised for practical application by don beck and chris cowan in the excellent book “spiral dynamics” (i’m not affiliated with anyone concerned, incidentally). at the risk of sounding like somewhat of a “fanboy”, as i believe it is called on teh interwebs, i am convinced it constitutes an important piece of intellectual real estate for the understanding of complex socio-political systems, particularly in behavioural terms.
When you get a chance, do please read the report which documents the iEngage campaign to gain access to the position of the APPG Secretariat by Dr Chris Allen at Applied Social Studies, School of Social Policy at the University of Birmingham. It was this report which recommended to MPs to drop iEngage. To its credit, it has catalogued, fairly and with clinical precision, the deceptions and chicanery employed by iEngage to cover up their extremist agenda.