Exclusive: Britain's Street Protests – What is Going On? (Part Three of Four)

by ADRIAN MORGAN September 30, 2009
Click here for Part One; here for Part Two
 
Who’s Who?
 
The identification of players on the far left is complex enough, as I have shown. The unsubstantiated claims that the EDL and any other group is a "front" for the BNP appear to be misleading. For the UAF and the far left, anyone who has concerns about the spread of Islam is de facto a racist or fascist, a person whose fears possibly mask notions of genocidal intent.
 
In some cases, the supporters of some of these groups are extremist in nature. The English Defence League has claimed that it is not connected to the BNP. However, research by Searchlight demonstrates that some BNP members have been active at EDL events.
 

 
On their Hope not Hate website, a former BNP member from Milton Keynes called Barry Taylor is quoted. He wrote that: "A lot of the activism and support in Luton was due to the group of friends known as the MIGs. When Nick Griffin made a visit to our area in February 2007 the MIGs were not invited. Subsequently they discovered that they had been excluded from the guest list and were very disappointed. This was a very disrespectful way to treat our allies. The ‘loss of face’ that this caused for their leaders caused them to stop attending meetings and also prevented their campaigning on our behalf in Luton. These men had previously represented about 50 per cent of the available workforce for Luton."
 
The acronym "MIG" stands for "Men in Gear." They are known to have links to the Luton Football Club, as a band or "firm" of soccer supporters/hooligans. One of these Luton MIGS is, according to Tom Woodson of Searchlight, a man named Davy Cooling who is a BNP member. There are a few other individuals who are claimed by Searchlight to be both EDL and BNP members, but though this is intriguing and enough to raise concerns, there is not enough evidence to conclusively prove that the BNP has an active part in the EDL or vice versa. A few individuals who share the same fear/distrust/contempt for Islam/Islamism are bound to be attracted to similar ventures.
 
However, it should be enough that the BNP is trying to establish itself as a parliamentary party, and does not need to have street-fighting ascribed to it. The EDL still mystifies me. It claims to not be a racist group, and it claims not to want violence. The EDL is nonetheless linked with UK Casuals, a group of soccer hooligans, reputedly led by an individual called Jeff Marsh who wrote a book called Soul Crew Seasiders, an autobiographical account of soccer hooliganism and violence. If the EDL genuinely does not want to have a reputation for violence and intimidation, possible reasons for having soccer "fighters" on its team would stem from either using them as protective bodyguards or as foot soldiers.
 
On the front page of the UK Casuals website, among an assortment of videos of Islamic "hate-figures", is the following mission statement (spelling corrected):
 
"I once read a book "The prophesies of Nostradamus" and it said "Islamic hordes will invade Europe but a British counter attack will drive them back". Be a part of it or hang your head in shame. 
 
What are we all about? As we are getting so many media queries its hard to answer them all, we'll try and explain it here.
 
Casuals United was the name used by the lads from around the UK who took to the streets,(after the Luton protests) and endured serious physical attacks by Anjem Choudary’s henchmen, to show the rest of the online "patriot" movement the way forward.
 
If these 30 - 40 had not embarked on the initial anti Choudary protests, then the EDL and other Defense Leagues would not be where they are now.
 
The Birmingham protests were a major success, the first one was unannounced, the second was a major cock up as small groups of whites were chased away by a large mob of Muslim youths who were wound up by the UAF, a Government funded outfit of anarchists/communists who scream at and attack anyone who dares defend the destruction of our country. The third one was organized off Facebook and succeeded in getting most lads to the meeting point without being arrested or picked off by Muslim/left wing morons.
 
Casuals United now exists simply as a recruiter for the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish Defence Leagues. We do not organize demos, we simply use online and otherwise communication networks of lads to drum up support.
 
We'd like to take this opportunity to thank the UAF for pissing the British public off so much with your scummy antics, you are the reason we get 150 new email enquiries every day, and are constantly in the news, thank you "comrades". You’ve truly opened the eyes of the public to who the real thugs and Nazis are.
 
You deluded Communist fools are defending the Jihadists, whose intention is to impose Sharia law and an Islamic state upon us, and the irony is, if they achieved that aim, you’d be the first victims of that regime...
 
...The Government and Police need to decide whether they want to carry on turning a blind eye to killers in our midst, a small minority, or whether they want to listen to the concerns of the ignored MAJORITY, and deal with the Jihadists before widespread disorder breaks out, as this movement continues to grow."
 
I have been in contact with the stated representative of UK Casuals, an individual named "Mickey Smith" or Mike Smith, the official spokesperson for his group. Smith (who could be Jeff Marsh) agreed to answer the same questionnaire that I sent to Paul Ray, and also to Stephen Gash of SIOE.
 
It is obvious to anyone who has had the stamina to read so far that there are various players in the drama unfolding right now. Unless one understands the historical roles of certain participants, there will be no real understanding of the situation. Sadly, the UAF is so ready to attack anyone as "racists" or "fascists" that it is in danger of stifling any legitimate debate on what is driving working class people to want to vote for a reactionary party such as the BNP.
 
The UAF seems unconcerned that some people feel threatened that their society is changing in ways they never imagined. The UAF has also used some dishonesty to claim that anyone protesting against Islamism or Islamization is a BNP supporter. On September 11, 2009, the UAF had alarmed enough Muslims in Harrow to believe the Station Road mosque which is currently under construction was being threatened by BNP fascists. The BNP had nothing to do with the protest.
 
The Iranian-owned Press TV blatantly misreported the events, claiming that the SIOE (Stop Islamization of Europe) group was "The BNP." Weyman Barrett, interviewed by Press TV said: "What we've got to be absolutely clear of, it's a successful demonstration as we kept the BNP – EDL out. I think frustrations run high because the insults of trying to attack a mosque is unacceptable for the majority of people."
 

 
Bennett's latter comment is correct – for Muslims in the area, a demonstration complaining at their mosque's extensions is perceived as an affront. However, the demonstration had nothing to do with the BNP, as suggested by the UAF joint coordinator. Some EDL members appear to have been present, but SIOE (Stop the Islamization of Europe) who had gained police permission to stage a small protest were not mentioned.
 
Young Muslims arrived in force, between 1,000 to 2,000 in number, and severely outnumbered the SIOE protesters. Only about 20 to 30 of these managed to get to the point that the police had agreed could be used to stage their demonstration. On the day the numbers of counterdemonstrators were so high that the event was called off. Stephen Gash was briefly arrested "to prevent a breach of the peace." Eight protesters, including Muslims, were arrested. Four of these were accused of carrying hammers and bleach, another was charged with possessing a six-inch knife, another reputedly had a knuckle duster (brass knuckles), another had a chisel, and another had a spanner (wrench).
 
The Questionnaire
 

 
Originally I intended to send a set of six questions to Luton EDL members involved with organizing protests, and to then expand them. The questions related to comments made about the nature of certain associations. Paul Ray's group of EDL-related associates were interviewed by Martin Mawyer and Jason Campbell of the Christian Action Network, back in late August of this year. That incident led to a British blogger fulminating about Martin Mawyer being an "anti-gay bigot," a comment which then traveled the globe and was used as a weapon by Californian musician/blogger Charles Johnson to personally attack Robert Spencer, who also features in Mr. Mawyer's documentary (Spencer had no dealings with the EDL, despite Johnson's claims).
 
As a heated political issue had been made out of EDL associating with people accused of "anti-gay bigotry," and as the BNP has a policy of excluding openly gay individuals from its core membership, I added a question about homophobia. The other questions were more or less straightforward. The questionnaire was sent by e-mail, and I promised the respondents that I would make no alterations to anything they said. I keep to that promise, apart from correcting typographic and spelling errors.
 
Paul Ray suggested in an e-mail exchange that he would pass on my questions to Tommy Robinson (the purported leader of EDL) but there was a long silence and I assume Robinson was not willing to deal with me. The three recipients were Mickey Smith of Casuals United, Paul Ray of his Luton St. George group, and Stephen Gash, the head of SIOE. Having dealt with the methodology, this is the questionnaire. This example given below is the question list intended for EDL. The other two groups were asked to substitute the references to EDL with their own group and answer accordingly. At the time I sent off the questionnaire, I was not aware that Paul Ray had been excluded from the main EDL group.
 
1) Why was EDL founded? Did any specific event trigger this?
 
2) Who started EDL with you, and when?
 
3) Is EDL against Muslims, Islamists, or immigrants?
 
4) People have accused EDL of racism and - because of an interview with a right-wing Christian group - have implied that EDL is homophobic. Are these accusations true?
 
5) With views that can be seen by some as "far right", how can you stop people who are genuinely "fascistic" in nature (racist, xenophobic etc) attending such events?
 
6)  EDL and SIOE demonstrations have received physical hostility from counterdemonstrators who simultaneously staged protests. These participants were from the "United Against Fascism" group, as well as angry young Muslims. One commenter on a SIOE blog suggested on Saturday that the level of hostility expressed by counter-protesters at the Harrow SIOE demonstration could have caused the death of the SIOE organizer.
 
What if such violence as we have already seen on Britain's streets at these EDL and SIOE events does get out of hand and someone - from either side - gets killed? Will this cause EDL to rethink its tactics?
 
 
THE RESPONSES
 
The answers from Paul Ray
 

 
1) The EDL was founded as a direct result of the present British government’s total failure to act to prevent British society from being a safe and secure place for us and our children, now and in the future, from Islam and Moslems whose aim is one of converting the country into an Islamic State by all means necessary.  Those aims take on all approaches through Jihad, whether peacefully through politics or through the bomb conducted by terrorists.
 
2) The original EDL was instigated by myself coming together with members of UPL (United People of Luton) and other anti-Jihad activists around the country who had finally had enough of the danger posed to our local communities and the country as a whole.  The name was taken, as an English equivalent of the Welsh Defence League that was already in place after someone came to me, knowing my intentions, and posed the question “what about setting up an English Defence League?”
 
I agreed and things went from there and the group was formed. The original English Defence League was born in Luton by the people of Luton. It was initially formed in direct response to the Moslem anti-war protest by Al Muhajiroun in Luton due to the fact that a section of the local community had finally had enough of the militancy within their town and wanted action taken by the police and local government.
 
3) The current EDL now has different people doing different things separate from myself, each with their own views and opinions. My personal view and opinion is, is that anyone trying to convert great Britain into an Islamic State, whether peacefully or militantly, is an enemy of the British people, so those are who I am against.
 
If a Moslem is not actively engaged in trying to convert their host Nation into an Islamic State then they are not Moslem. Islamists are just the military wing of the religion and take all of the flack.
 
Take a read of Robert Spencer’s Stealth Jihad which talks about the silent subversive war to take our countries over.
 
My view is that if there are reformers within the Islamic community in Britain seeking to remove the concept of Jihad and converting nations from the Dar al-Harb into the Dar al-Islam, then they are obviously not who the protests are against and have the support of the EDL.
 
Those who have a proper understanding of the aims and intent of Islam and how they are seeking to fulfill their religion will know though, that deception is a key tactic to achieve their goals, so it is very hard to differentiate between who is and who isn't an enemy of the British people, especially when the government and media tell the uneducated public that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that Islamic terrorism is “anti-Islamic activity.”
 
The question of immigrants is a political question and bears no relevance to the EDL protests because immigrants come in many Nationalities and creeds, with members of the EDL descendants of immigrants themselves.  Obviously there are many Islamic militants who are arriving and have arrived in Britain through the immigrant route and have claimed and are claiming asylum in the country which then brings the immigrant question into the equation but immigration per say is not what the EDL is about.
 
4) The leadership of the EDL was interviewed with a highly respected black member amongst their ranks by the said Christian group, so how on earth can anyone brand them racist?  That is a tactic used by enemies of the EDL to try and discredit them in the public’s eyes The same well worn tactic of the left, which is the beating of those who oppose their left wing view with the big bad racist beating stick. The EDL is in no way homophobic and will defend the rights of homosexuals to live in peace and security as much as they are defending their own rights to live in peace and security, through peaceful protest.
 
Islam as a religion is a direct threat to everyone’s peace and security now, and not just here in Britain but also in America. This statement is based upon the teachings of the Koran itself, and what life would be like for non-Moslems living under sharia law, whether straight or gay. The people of England would not stand back idle whilst Moslems are seeking to stone homosexuals to death or string them from lampposts which is what the likes of Anjem Choudary are saying them will do to them.  So the EDL protest group stands in defence of homosexuals within Britain.  Most people have homosexual friends or know of people who have family members who are homosexual, the same as with people of different skin colour to their own.  This is what a civilized society in the 21st Century is all about. Everyone has their own personal opinions and views on all subjects pertaining to life and just because someone who is classed as “homophobic” due to their own opinions does not mean that because they did an interview with someone then they too must be homophobic. Anyone who says and believes such things is clearly “stupid” and has a clear agenda so is using this stupidity to try and discredit the EDL. Those who believe these lies logically must be stupid themselves.
 
5) I am no longer an active participant of the current movement on the streets, but support the leadership of “Tommy Robinson” 100 percent.  I have now set up my own branch of the EDL that comes under its own leadership structure called the St George division. St. George was not English, and he is the Patron Saint of many Nations so anyone standing under that banner can in no way be racist. In life though we all have our own opinions and views but as long as you hold up the ideals of St. George within your life then your view has to be the same as his but just living in the 21st Century.  Holding up those ideals brings change in mind and attitude because at the core of it is the teachings of Jesus and the Christian faith. No racists are welcome, and before anyone says it, Islam is not a race it is an ideology that drives people through teaching them what they should think, feel and how they should act towards others. Skin colour bears no relevance to this debate.
 
6)  Moslems will eventually kill someone that is a fact. I presently have several threats against my life, one being from members of Anjem Choudary’s extremist Islam4uk group, that has just reverted back to being the banned militant group Al Muhajiroun that was set up by Omar Bakri. The same person has also made direct threats to kill EDL members. We are now just waiting to see whether or not the police are going to uphold British law and arrest this person for his threats to kill and other laws he has broken.
 
You ask yourself the question whether or not these people are willing to carry out the threats, and when you do remember that they believe within their religion that Allah will reward them for killing enemies of Islam. This person who has threatened me has told his Moslem audience to draw parallels with my hopeful murder with the slaying of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, so this should help answer that question for your readers.
 
From my position, the English Defence League was only ever set up to be a peaceful protest group on the streets of Britain, exercising our democratic right to demonstrate peacefully against the issues we currently have grievance to demonstrate about. That view for the EDL street protest movement from my vantage point and with any of my active participation will never change no matter what happens.  The question then will be whether or not different factions will break away with their own agendas using the EDL name. If someone is killed then the whole dynamics of the current street protest movement will change and then maybe we could do another interview at that point to discuss the new reality we all face within Britain and the future of the EDL street protest movement. Thank you for this interview and giving me the opportunity to answer your questions for your readers. God bless you.
 
************
Casuals United spokesperson Mickey Smith's answers
 
1) It was when the extremist Muslims disrupted the Anglian regiment’s homecoming in Luton, people tried to attack the protesters and two white people were arrested while the Muslims were allowed to continue, this is like our grandfathers returning from WWII to be insulted on our streets by Nazis.
 
2) The EDL was started as an alliance of the United people of Luton, and football supporters from around the UK using Facebook.
 
3) It is against Islamic Extremist, not Muslim people per se, those whose declared aim is to make Britain an Islamic state, and who laugh at our soldiers dying on their websites.
 
4) We are not racist and have many Sikh and Black supporters, we are not homophobic, and point out the anti-gay views of Muslim extremists in our attacks on them (see site link below)
 
5) We are finding it hard, and two idiots were caught “seig heiling” at our Birmingham demo, they have now been banned, as hooligans some of our members may be, but we are not Nazis.
 
6) If someone was killed we wouldn’t be happy, but it’s more likely to be one of us, as our members only fight in self defence and the most violence has come from left wing rodents and the Muslims they wind up.
 
*********************
 
The answers from Stephen Gash, founder and leader of SIOE England, and also Anders Gravers, original founder of SIOE:
 

 
1) There were plenty of blogs describing what and how Islam was creeping towards controlling the West and the rest of the world, but nobody seemed to be doing much. SIOE was started to have a simple message and to be a direct action group.
 
2) SIOE started in March 2007. Anders Gravers was already doing protests and other direct action events in Denmark with SIAD.  Nobody else seemed to be doing much, so I phoned him and we decided to do a Stop Islamization of Europe demo in Brussels on 11th September 2007.
 
3) We do not believe in moderate Muslims. We believe there are Muslims and those who want to leave Islam. Some Muslims are more active than others, but all Muslims want sharia law and Islam to rule the world. Moderate Muslims are those who watch non-Muslims being killed, but still say Allah u Akbar when the killing is happening.
 
Therefore, we obviously oppose Islamists because Islamists are merely Muslims, and Muslims are Islamists.
 
We oppose immigration from Muslim countries.
 
4) SIOE's motto is "Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!"  We were the only group to protest against the Muslim ethnic cleansing of Greenlander Inuits from their homes in Gellerup in northern Denmark. We encourage support, and have support, from, persecuted minority groups in Islamic countries, such as Hindus, Christians in Indonesia, Copts in Egypt etc. Muslims persecute non-Muslims regardless of race, and Muslims of different races carry out the persecution. Muslims are the problem and it is Islam that inspires them. Race has nothing to do with it. However, we oppose racism and exclude racist elements from our organization.
 
However, the media are obsessed with race.
 
SIOE has tried to persuade gays and lesbians to attend their events and to explain how they are persecuted and executed, merely for being homosexual, in Islamic countries such as Iran.
 
SIOE has significant support from gays and lesbians in Denmark. SIOE wrote an article for the gay and lesbian foundation in the UK, which was partly published (edited as an editorial) about the Harrow 11th September demonstration.
 
5) SIOE does not accept the terms "right wing" and "left wing." The table of political oppression is a round one at which the left and the right would sit shoulder to shoulder, if it were not for Islam sitting between them.
 
Is stoning a woman to death for being raped left wing or right wing? Women are just dying to know. 
 
6) Anders Gravers and four other SIOE/SIAD supporters, including two women, one in her 70s, were beaten with iron bars by so-called anti-fascists. Anders and another male supporter were stabbed at the same time, only saved by security vests.
 
SIOE is entirely peaceful in its protests, but refuses to be intimidated by self-styled anti-fascists who are, in fact, the most violent fascist thugs in Europe.  We will continue to oppose Islam and sharia by stealth. This means demonstrating and protesting when we can.
 
Muslims are violent anyway, especially when they are offended. It is impossible for a non-Muslim not to offend a Muslim. Giving in to Muslims just provokes more violence by them. Appeasement of Muslims provokes even more stringent demands.
 
SIOE does not appease and faces down confrontation.
 
Regards
Stephen Gash
Anders Gravers 
 
******************************
 
I was a little surprised at the responses. Though the spokesman of Casuals United called the Far Left "rodents," his comments were far more "tolerant" than I had been led to believe, after reading press commentary. The comments from SIOE seemed more forceful and uncompromising than I expected. However, I am of the opinion that these answers are honest opinions. The answers from all three respondents may seem reactionary, reflecting a sense of deep frustration with the current situation in Britain, but I cannot see these answers as reflecting genuine "racism" or "fascism." Paul Ray's comments must be viewed as his own – as he no longer represents the current strategies of the national and regional EDL groups,
 
I wonder at the Far Left – who condemns the open fear of Islam that is expressed by SIOE and others, and openly accuse "Islamophobes" of being sowers of hate. Yet when one sees the number of mosques being erected in Britain, often with money from Saudi Arabia, I wonder why no Far Left individual raises the question of hypocrisy. Saudi Arabia funds the export of Islam around the world (even to Nepal), yet prevents any Bibles from being brought into their kingdom. No churches are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, and migrant workers who hold unofficial Christian services have been jailed.
 
Similarly in Pakistan, Christians are a minority group, yet they are persecuted mercilessly. In Malaysia, no one is allowed to leave Islam and Buddhists, Hindus and Christians are legally defined as second-class citizens, and yet Malaysia regards itself as upholding a "civilizational" form of Islam. The Far Left hobnobs with Islamists who openly support such policies of discrimination in Muslim countries and who often express extreme anti-Semitism.
 
If anyone expresses a fear that the culture and values they thought represented Britain are being undermined or changed undemocratically, by the influence of Islam (through Islamic political pressure groups or by irrational legislation) then they are portrayed by the Far Left as "racists" or fascists. Fear of being verbally attacked in this manner leads some to stay silent, and freedom of speech, essential for a democracy, is compromised. When the fountain of discourse is blocked, the intellectual landscape stagnates and becomes ultimately arid. Monolithic political ideologies, such as Communism and Islamism, have brought no freedom of thought to Muslim countries, yet the Far Left seems to wish to impose the same limitations upon Britain's democracy.
 
I have tried, not always successfully, to make a distinction between Islamists and Muslims. I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful citizens, and not out to "see the black flag of Islam fluttering above Downing Street," a boast made by Al-Muhajiroun and related individuals. To hear people declaring that no Muslim can escape being an Islamist is the most worrying revelation from the questionnaire. The role of "secular" Muslims, "cultural" Muslims, apostates, all need to be acknowledged. Muslims must be treated as individuals, and be allowed to flourish as individual citizens, with a right to believe in whatever they choose to believe in, as long as they do not seek (as extremists have done) to once again bind our democracy under theocratic control.
 
To suggest that all Muslims are the same in their attitudes robs Muslim citizens of their individuality, including their individual rights to choose to follow communal, rather than individualistic, precepts. What worries me most in the current agitations from those who are openly challenging Islam's influence upon British society and politics, and by the groups who wish to silence them, is "Where will this end?"
 
Most groups that agitate for change have an end-goal. I should have asked this question to the three respondents, as this question is the most important of all. It is fine to say that one is worried or opposed to an ideology, but when people who follow that ideology are legally living here, what should happen in the end for those people? One cannot legislate against an ideology and remain a free democratic society. Nor can one remove citizenship from people. I worry that without a hope for a solution that politically protects all people, increasing the strength of the debate between Islam and anti-jihadism could only lead to violence.
 
I personally want to see people integrate into one multiracial British society, and to regard their religion as one aspect of their identity and not the only feature by which they should be defined. If there are islands and bridges of tolerance that can be made at the present time between the polar extremes of Islamism and Islamophobia, then I wish to see them develop.
 
However, Britain has lived for 12 years under a dogmatic party that has introduced rafts of new laws, while simultaneously subsuming British legal autonomy under the courts of the European Union. Individuals in Britain, no matter their background, have become less and less able to know where they stand, or to alter their fortunes. In a climate of uncertainty, forceful and extremist solutions will become more attractive to those who have no power.
 
The Influence of Politics
 
The scale of the current problems that appear to be developing cannot be appreciated without acknowledging the part that the British government has played in ratcheting up tensions. In earlier times, influential movements helped to inform the construction of Britain's political life. Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) introduced the ideology of "Utilitarianism" where social and political reform should be designed to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. His protegé John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) took Utilitarianism to mean more rights for the individual, in a progressive but ordered society. Labour has enacted policies that corrupt the Utilitarian ethos and also the Socialist nostrums that gave birth to the party.
 
The current government has socialist roots but claims to support individual liberties. The inherent contradictions of these impulses have led to chaotic legislation. The law is no longer seen as a vehicle to protect a citizen, but a means to tyrannize – from fining people for not closing their garbage cans properly to allowing local mayoral councils to enact surveillance against citizens (under the Ripa Act). Rights of privacy are meaningless when a person's individual information can be shared with more than 792 mostly unelected public bodies.
 
The current Labour government has tampered with the minutiae of the political landscape, to a point that it is unrecognizable. With no clear constitution, and no clearly defined charter of citizens' rights, the government has created an environment where communities are forced to compete for patronage. When communities are made to compete, they do not celebrate each other's diversity. Resentments have festered quietly for years. The current situation is perhaps also symptomatic of general frustration with a government that treats its citizens as passive subjects, mere cogs in the machinery of politicized social engineering.
 

 
Because of the actions of the Far Right, the Union Jack became a symbol of racist nationalism. Under Labour's socialist government that divided the political "Union" of Britain Scotland and Wales by introducing "regional assemblies," the Union Jack has become a dated irrelevance. When even its national flag has been robbed of meaning, Britain is in a crisis of identity and ideology that it has never encountered before.
 
I remember the riots of the 1980s all too clearly and though they made – to use the Chinese expression – "interesting times" to live through, they caused widespread destruction. Social unrest of such a scale now would not die out easily and could lead to community violence and ultimately a Balkanization of many parts of Britain. If inter-community violence erupts, then some inner city neighborhoods could see virtual civil war.
 
Britain's institutions are clearly a lot less overtly racist than they were in the 1980s, and worlds away from how they were in my childhood. In 1964, when I was six years old, an election was being fought in Smethwick in inner city Birmingham. The Labour candidate, Gordon Walker, was expected to win. He lost, however, to a Tory called Peter Griffith, whose campaign slogan was: "If you want a nigger for a neighbor, vote Liberal or Labour." When the election results were announced, Griffiths taunted his opponent with comments that included "Where are your niggers now, Walker?"
 

 
In Birmingham on April 20, 1968, Tory grandee Enoch Powell (1912 - 1998) made a notorious speech that is still discussed, 40 years on. The "Rivers of Blood" speech was delivered to a Conservative Association. The full text is here. Powell was immediately sacked by Edward Heath, then head of the Conservative party. Certain of Powell's comments, such as referring to "piccaninnies." were knowingly racist. He quoted a disgruntled constituent who had claimed that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."
 
Stripped of its racist terms and extrapolated statistics, the reason why the speech is still discussed is that it provided a dire warning of Britain's society transforming at a rate that could not be managed, a country allowing uncontrolled immigration happening faster than any integration could ever be achieved. Powell said: "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'."
 
In some aspects, such as the predicted transformation of Britain's racial and ethnic demography, Powell's speech was almost accurate. However, there were enough emotive "sound-bites" to provide fuel to the resentments of many white working-class people. Mosley's Blackshirts had been disbanded, but Powell's comments – aimed as they were against an upcoming "Race Relations Bill" would become influential in the development of the National Front and related groups. Powell, publicly spurned as a pariah of politics, would be seen as a "martyr hero" for the emerging new wave of racist "politics."
 
Political movements, just like religious movements, need martyrs to give impetus to their cause. The Tolpuddle Martyrs (transported from Dorset to Australia in 1834 for holding a trade union meeting) have inspired British Trade Unionism. Powell's political "martyrdom" made him a greater force in the emerging racist nationalist movements than if he was allowed to remain in his party and be challenged. In the mid 1970s, the National Front used to demand "repatriation" of non-indigenous people. With the rise of numbers of citizens who were born to immigrants, the repatriation argument became increasingly illogical. As its notions of becoming a political "party" became increasingly remote, the NF became increasingly violent until - by the mid 1980s it was a virtually spent force.
 
The Labour Party came to power on May 27, 1997. In a dozen years, it has allowed uncontrolled immigration. The current population sits at just over 60 million. The current Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, famously said in July this year that "I do not lie awake at night worrying about a population of 70 million. I'm happy to live in a multicultural society."
 
In a time when economic recession is forcing people out of jobs, with an annual migration rate of one quarter of a million people every year, many working class people feel that their security is threatened, and that they will have to compete against newly arrived migrants to gain work.
 
Labour has forced multiculturalism upon Britain, rather than encouraging migrant communities to integrate and assimilate. The cavalier and condescending attitudes of Labour ideologues are forcing communities to compete for an ever-diminishing slice of the cake. This apparent lack of concern for the worries of its main support base – the working classes – is also driving more people to seek extremist solutions for the extreme conditions they find themselves in. It is almost recreating the same conditions that gave birth to the National Front.
 
In 2001, Labour had already been in power for four years when riots involving young Muslims took place in northern cities of Britain. The riots of 2001 in northern England showed how "multiculturalism" had failed, and only created ghettoes. However, with rising social tensions and still little integration taking place, the Labour government maintains that multiculturalism is acceptable. Multiculturalism makes Alan Johnson "happy." But in 2001 even John Denham, the current communities secretary, who is now expected to resolve the current tensions in Britain, did not believe that multiculturalism was working.
 
In Part Four, I will examine the failures of multiculturalism in Labour controlled Britain, and expose the folly of current government policy
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan is a British-based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He also writes for Spero News. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society. He is currently compiling a book on the demise of democracy and the growth of extremism in Britain. Feedback: editorialdirector@familysecuritymatters.org.
 
 

blog comments powered by Disqus

President authorizes 350 additional US military personnel to Baghdad in non-combat role

September 02, 2014  09:16 PM

The troops will protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel in Baghdad.

COO says St. Louis County spent $4.5 million on Ferguson protests

September 02, 2014  08:09 PM

That includes $2.5 million in overtime for the St. Louis County Police.

'A weak America invites chaos': Governor Jindal calls out Obama

September 02, 2014  07:58 PM

"Peace through strength is not a slogan."

Fundraising pages for Officer Darren Wilson suspended after pulling in $400,000

September 02, 2014  07:36 PM

Tax issues are reportedly to blame.

Former CIA operative tells CNN that ISIS cells are already here in the US

September 02, 2014  06:45 PM

@redsteeze Take me with you. I've had enough.— Kimberly Cross (@KCross211) September 02, 2014 Former CIA operative Bob Baer told CNN’s Jake Tapper today that ISIS cells already exist in the United States and are capable of striking. Fmr. CIA operative: ISIS cells are here in the U.S., and they’re capable of striking cnn.it/1pFJyUJ #TheLead— […]

FSM Archives

More in PUBLICATIONS ( 1 OF 25 ARTICLES )