Britain's Street Protests - What is going on? Part 4 of 4

Britain's Street Protests - What is going on? Part 4 of 4

PART FOUR (OF FOUR)

The Oldham Riots of 2001

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Oldhamfire.jpg

The current problems of groups fighting on Britain's streets has been likened to earlier events. Gerry Gable, the former editor of Searchlight said: "We're faced with an upsurge in fascist groups, and it's a real problem. This could do more damage to community relations than anything since the Oldham and Bradford riots of 2001 and 2002."

Gable's definition of "fascist groups" is debatable, but his invocation of the 2001 riots in relation to the events of today is sound. Worryingly, it has been announced that the EDL is planning two demonstrations in Oldham and Stoke. The Oldham Chronicle of September 22 announced that a new EDL group had been formed in Oldham and had already gained 50 members.

Nick Lowles of Searchlight is worried that the planned EDL event could bring back the violence that triggered the original Oldham riots of 2001. Lowles is right to be worried, but he should also be concerned that the UAF will almost certainly be agitating to create, as it has done at previous EDL events, a hostile and violent response to these demonstrations. Tariq Rafique, from Oldham Race Equality Partnership, said: "Their main priority is to undermine the good work done in places like Oldham. They are trying to move us back into the dark days that no one wanted to ever see."

The leader of the Oldham EDL is a 25-year old man called Michael, and for a decade he has been the leader of a soccer supporting brigade or "firm" which is called Fine Young Casuals. This group was cited as being instrumental in the events that triggered the Oldham riots. When asked by the Oldham Chronicle about his role in the 2001 riots he replied: "We were standing up for something we believed in at the time. But it’s a long time ago and I was young then."

The events leading up to the Oldham riots appear to be these. On Saturday May 26, 2001, two South Asian youths aged 11 and 14 were attacked on the edge of Glodwick. A brick was thrown at them by a 16-year old white youth, and one of the boys was struck on the leg. The youth who was hit by the brick went with his elder brother to a house which the attacker had entered. A woman inside the house (Sharon Hoy) became abusive, and claimed in a phone call to her brother that "Some Pakis have kicked the door in." The woman's brother (Darren Hoy) was drinking with members of the neo-Nazi Combat 18 group, visiting from London, along with BNP members and members of the Fine Young Cannibals.

The woman's brother and his "associates" descended on the street and began to physically attack and vandalize cars, residences and a hair-dressing business before being arrested. While they had rampaged, wielding an iron bar, sticks and wooden pallets, they also threatened South Asian residents, including a very pregnant 34-year old woman who needed to be treated for shock. Meanwhile, South Asians started to gather in Glodwick, reaching about 500 by 10 pm. Rioting continued until 5 am. Further rioting continued on the two subsequent days. On the Monday, the offices of the Oldham Evening News were attacked with petrol bombs, and windows were smashed.

On April 3, 2003 Hoy, his sister Sharon and eight other adults, along with two minors, went to trial at Minshull Street Crown Court in Manchester. On June 13, 2003 all of the adults were jailed, receiving sentences of one year. The Telegraph noted that South Asians who had been convicted of the rioting that had been set off by Hoy and his associates had received greater sentences. At that time, 22 Asians had been sentenced to a total of 75 years (averaging 3.4 years each).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1295000/images/_1296007_walterface150.jpg

There is nothing to excuse the violence which took place, but tensions between communities were already high. A month before the rioting in Oldham, a 76-year old man, a veteran of Word War II, was savagely attacked by Asian youths. Walter Chamberlain's face (pictured) became a sad icon of the unsettled period.

Additionally, statistics of racist incidents from 1999 to 2000, had been gathered by Greater Manchester Police. These had shown that of 646 racial incidents in the Oldham region (Division Q) white people comprised 52 per cent of victims. Of all white victims of racial incidents in the Greater Manchester area, 38 per cent came from Oldham.

The BBC reported that: "More than 180 of the racial incidents were violent and the vast majority of those were attacks by Asian youths - usually in gangs of anything from six to 20 - on lone white males."

For the South Asian resident's part, it had been announced that Nick Griffin of the BNP would be standing in the June 7 election as a candidate for Oldham West. This news, combined with reports of the police statistics, may have added to pressures they may have felt.

Days after the Oldham riots ended, another outbreak of rioting took place in Leeds where brcks were thrown at police by Bangladeshi youths. This incident had erupted after police had used rough tactics to arrest Hassan Mir, a local man of Bangladeshi origin.

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/DukeYorkPub.jpg

There were subsequent riots in the north. The first of these took place at Burnley on the nights of June 23 and June 24, 2001. It was later claimed that the Burnley riots had been fuelled by white racists who spread rumors that funding was going disproportionately to different communities. The incident that triggered the Burnley rioting was triggered by an incident in which a South Asian taxi driver was attackd by a group of white men. In the ensuing rioting the Duke of York pub was gutted by fire.

On July 7, 2001, rioting broke out in Bradford, another northern town. The BBC states that violence broke out in the city "after crowds at an Anti-Nazi League rally discovered that National Front sympathizers were gathering in a nearby pub." The Anti-Nazi League gathering had been legally allowed, at the Centenary Square, before it descended into violence. Police were subsequently attacked with bricks, molotov cocktails and broken bottles when they tried to intervene. Two people were stabbed in the Bradford unrest on that day, and the following day, up to 1,000 youths continued to riot. Three people were seriously injured.

One of the stabbing victims was white, and was surrounded by a dozen young Asians. A witness recalled that: "They corralled him in a corner and started hitting him. He tried to fight his way out but was knocked to the ground and he was punched and kicked. One of the youths then pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the back. Blood was pouring out and I thought he was going to die. It was terrifying."

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Burnley.jpg

120 police officers were injured in the Bradford outbreak. 297 people were arrested, and 187 were charged. A South Asian businessman was subsequently jailed for an arson attack upon Manningham Labour Club. This had happened while people were inside. Mohammed Ilyas received a 12 year sentence.

Community Cohesion

After the rioting, the Home Office commissioned an inter-departmental report into the unrest that had led to the rioting of 2001. John Denham, as Home Office Minister of State, was the author of the report, which was entitled: "Building Cohesive Communities: A Report of the Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion" (available as a pdf file here). The report drew attention to the agitation by far right groups in the region as a factor in exacerbating the tensions.

Other problems were identified, including:

the lack of a strong civic identity or shared social values to unite diverse communities

the fragmentation and polarisation of communities – on economic, geographical, racial and cultural lines – on a scale which amounts to segregation, albeit to an extent by choice

disengagement of young people from the local decision making process, inter-generational tensions, and an increasingly territorial mentality in asserting different racial, cultural and religious identities in response to real or perceived attacks;

The rioting in Oldham, Bradford and Burnley showed that cultures of "parallel lives" were not creating harmony, and there is nothing in Denham's report that supports the notion of "multiculturalism" being successful in the divided communities of the former mill towns. The word "multiculturalism" exists nowhere in the document.

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Cantle.jpg

A more extensive report was made by Ted Cantle, which involved three months' worth of research into community relations in Bradford, Burnley, Oldham, Birmingham, Leicester, Stoke-on-Trent, Telford and Southall, west London. Prior to the release of his report, Cantle said: "I was surprised by the depth of feeling and the divisions in some of the areas and the failure of communication."

The full Cantle report, which was released on December 11, 2001, can be found in pdf format here, entitled: "Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team. The introduction to the report was written by John Denham, who came a little closer to championing "multiculturalism" when he wrote: " The Home Secretary’s response was to set up a Ministerial Group on Public Order and Community Cohesion to examine and consider how national policies might be used to promote better community cohesion, based upon shared values and a celebration of diversity."

The main points of Cantle's report suggested that people were living parallel lives, and that as communities lived in ignorance of each other, their fears could be exploited by extremists. Cantle recommended improvements in housing, education (where schools appeared highly racially segregated) and also developing a "meaningful concept of citizenship." Cantle suggested too that there should be some concept of citizenship

On Burnley, Cantle wrote: "There is not just simply residential segregation, but there is separation in education, in social, cultural, faith, in virtually every aspect of their daily lives, employment too."

Five years on, a second Cantle report was made. Unlike the 2001 report, which had visited various communities, the 2006 report focused specifically on Oldham. It is available (in pdf format) hereThough it praised the strides that had been made in Oldham towards improving community cohesion, it also pointed out the need for people across different generations and different ethnic groups and different parts of the borough of Oldham to work together. This suggested that the "parallel lives" which Ted Cantle had highlighted in 2001 remained as an issue.

Sleepwalking to Segregation

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/TrevorP.jpg

On September 22, 2005, Trevor Phillips, the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) suggested that for some communities in Britain, segregated ghettoes were emerging. He sugggested that 13 per cent of citizens of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origin in the towns of Leicester and Bradford were living in ghettos. He also said that schools also becoming more segregated, reflecting the recommendations made in the 2001 Cantle report (p 33, 5.8.6).

Phillips blamed multiculturalism as one of the factors that was allowing britain to be "sleepwalking to segregation". He told his audience at Manchester Town Hall, Mr Phillips said: "The fragmentation of our society by race and ethnicity is a catastrophe for all of us. We all have a part to play. Integration has to be a two-way street, in which the settled communities accept that new people will bring change with them and newcomers realise that they too will have to change if we are to move closer to an integrated society.

We already know a lot about what an integrated society looks like. It has three essential features: equality, where everyone is treated equally, has a right to fair outcomes, and no one should expect privileges because of what they are; participation: all groups in society should expect to share in how we make decisions, but also expect to carry the responsibilities of making the society work; and interaction: no-one should be trapped within their own community, and in the truly integrated society, who people work with, or the friendships they make, should not be constrained by race or ethnicity.

There is no doubt that Britain is facing a clear demand to make the process of integration real, active and urgent."

The Commission for Racial Equality, the body then headed by Trevor Philips, had been founded in 1976. Two years after his speech in Manchester, it was disbanded in September 2007. It was replaced by a new body called "The Equalities Commission," which would broaden the scope of interest to include issues of disability and sexual orientation.

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Denham2.jpg

On Sunday September 27, 2009, John Denham spoke to Roger Bolton about the Labour government's approach to issues of faith and social cohesion. The discussion was aired on the "Sunday" show on Radio 4. This is my transcript:
RB: "Hardly had he denounced Iran for developing a secret nuclear site and had shaken hands with President Obama after the G20 Summit, than Prime Minister Gordon Brown was on the plane from Pittsburgh to Brighton, where members of the Labour Party are gathering for their last ever annual conference before the general election. Like all the major parties, Labour is keen to ensure that their policies appeal to the increasingly-important faith communities, whose votes could be vital in some marginal seats. The government has recently widened its Prevent Agenda, dealing with violent extremism to include the extreme right and to work more closely at the local level with community groups. I asked John Denham, the secretary of state for communities and local government, whether that meant that its earlier policy, developed in the wake of the July 7 attacks, was flawed."

JD: "It was inevitable that in the rush to tackle this problem which had taken many people by surprise and which many people didn't believe could have happened, Whitehall had to act, and government had to move at the center but - over time - we've learned more about what works, we've seen more of the most innovative and effective work at cutting away the roots of the ideas that could promote violent extremism - a move to local level - and the government strategy increasingly reflects that. So I think it's more an inevitable fact that we had to start in one place and move to another. And each year goes by, the strategy develops as we learn more about what works and more about what doesn't work."

RB: "At the moment, the government won't formally talk to the Muslim Council of Britain, and it's suggested you've lobbied hard for a restoration of relations. Is that true?"

JD: "We work with many Muslim groups and it's certainly the case that there are voices within the Muslim Council of Britain which is an affiliate organization that any government would sensibly want to work with and engage with. But I think as everyone knows, there's been an issue for some months now, about a statement signed by a prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain which the government felt was beyond the pale and made it difficult for us to engage with the Muslim Council, so our position at the moment is that relations are suspended, but we've made it clear there are people within the MCB that we want and should be working with and we're still exploring how to move forward."

RB: "We've talked about Muslim groups but you've also had meetings with Hindu and Sikh groups. What have they been saying?"

JD: "Well I've had discussion of course with the Christian churches, along with having met with Sikhs and Hindus and Jains and Buddhists, and people accept that most of the funding which is in the system at the moment has been going to deal with the problems of extremism and the dangers of terrorism, but nonetheless,some groups feel that we could do more to facilitate their engagement with government. I think that's something we need to look at."

RB: "Now the government Prevent Agenda has been widened to include the threat of Far Right extremism. How are you going to be dealing with that?"

JD: "What we've done is say that we are going to do in order to undercut Far Right extremism - similar sorts of things that we have done with the Prevent program, recognizing that where people feel alienated, they don't feel engaged, perhaps feel under threat because their community is being changing recently, they don't feel their views are being articulated - that people can be prone to exploitation by extremists, particularly by those who want to reduce every issue to an issue of race, and racism. So we will, over the next few weeks, be engaging in a very determined way in communities where we think that risk is there, and actually challenging the myths that exist - say about the allocation of social housing. But also enabling people to express their concerns and to make sure that we respond to them."

RB: "Some people think you shouldn't talk to the BNP. But it's been suggested that you may appear on the Question Time program with the BNP. Is that the case?"

JD: "The Labour Party has had a long policy of not sharing platforms with the BNP, and that's for the very simple reason that - alone of the political parties of this country, the BNP is founded on the issue of race, defines everything in terms of race, even its own membership. But a situation has arisen. Two members of the BNP have been elected to the European Parliament. It may be that they will be invited onto programs like Question Time. It may be then that the Labour Party has to look at its policy and decide whether it wants to be represented."

RB: "And if asked, would you be prepared to go on Question Time with the BNP?"

JD: "If the view was that it would be better to be there, to make the arguments rather than to have an empty chair, then I personally would be prepared to do that, much as I loathe everything they stand for, recognizing that these arguments are out there and you have to take them on."

RB: "And that to some extent the BNP are reflecting you could say, exploiting, an alienation and disaffection in white working class communities."

JD: "I think they do exploit concerns that people have got, whether it's about migration, whether it's about the returns people get from work, whether it's about access to social housing, or just about the rate at which communities are changing. And you should be allowed to express those concerns, and you should expect politicians to be willing to respond and to deal with them, and if we do do that, then I think we cut away from the BNP their desire to say that every issue must be reduced to racism, and race."

RB: "Still on the subject of cohesion, I want to move onto the issue of "faith schools". Many people support them, of course, but others see them as socially divisive, Does the government believe there is scope to increase the number of faith schools in this country?"

JD: "As I understand it, the number of faith schools is increasing over the years as new faith schools are proposed. I don't think we have either a strategy of deliberately proposing or reducing the number. We reflect the changes that take place in our society. You know, when we've looked at this in the past, we've always been able to say to people opposed to faith schools, there's not much evidence that faith schools are particular problems, or propagators of divisiveness or exclusion or of rejection of shared values."

RB: "And about those communities that want not only faith schools, but would like to see extended their ability to have what you might call faith courts? Is there room for an expansion of such courts?"

JD: "I think the crucial issue here is that everybody in this country, whatever their faith, is equal in front of the law of the land. The law does not stop people going to alternative forms of resolution of disputes. But the law will never say to anybody - 'You have lost your rights under the law of this country because you are a particular faith and your faith asks you to deal with this issue in a different way'. So I think there is always the possibility of people having alternative ways of resolving differences. But I don't think that ever means that you have two classes of citizens, one of which enjoys the full rights of the laws of this country, and others who don't."

RB: "The communities secretary John Denham."

Let's Talk...

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Daud.jpg

The individual at the Muslim Council of Britain whom Denham mentioned is Daud Abdullah, who is the deputy General Secretary of the organization. He created a stir this year after it was revealed that he signed a controversial document at the Global Anti-Aggression conference in Istanbul This urged the attacking of Britain's Royal Navy, should it attempt to impede the import of weaponry being smuggled into Gaza for Hamas. Ed Husain of the Quilliam foundation said that Daud Abdullah was "a fanatic".

Hazel Blears, who was Communities Minister before John Denham, condemned Daud Abdullah, and demanded he be sacked from his position in the MCB. He, for his part, has denied that the controversial clauses in the document advocated attacks upon the navy, or attacks upon Jews, anywhere in the world. The government officially shunned the MCB over this issue in March 2009.

There is a touch of hypocrisy about the Labour government and its dealings with "extremists". In the same month that it labeled Daud Abdullah as a pariah, the government intended to have discussions with Dr Ibrahim Moussawi at the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas). Moussawi is a spokesman for Hizbollah, the Iranian-funded terrorist group. The Centre for Social Cohesion challenged this decision, threatening to obtain an arrest warrant for Moussawi if he stepped foot in the country. They succeeded and Moussawi was banned from entering Britain.

The government is prepared to sacrifice talks with the MCB, most powerful Muslim representative group in Britain, the sole body that may be able to stop young Muslims from becoming engaged in violent conflicts stirred up by UAF (United Against Fascism). All I can say is that I recently met with Daud Abdullah, and we briefly spoke together about the current situation with anti-Islamic protests and violent counter-protests. He seemed a charming and thoughtful man, despite his support for Hamas. After our conversation, I found myself perfectly able to "share a platform" with him on a show for Iranian-funded Press TV.

Maybe government ministers should grow up and stop being so sensitive as to avoid speaking to people who have views they do not agree with. The Labour Party is, after all, meant to be a government in office and not an exclusive club. At this moment in time, there are threats of more protests, and even though talking may not bring solutions, it may serve to show people that their opponents are not two-dimensional demons, but real people, with real opinions.

There are more EDL protests planned and a planned SIOE protest at Harrow. Much as I wish these events would take place in a low-key manner, without the UAF interfering and turning them into near-riots, the protesters are legitimately exercising their democratic rights for freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Maybe the UAF could also "grow up" and sit down with EDL and SIOE members and discuss their differences. Hurling eggs, insults, and inciting young Muslims into violent rage seems a petty - and potentially dangerous - means of dealing with people one does not agree with.

It takes two parties to make a fight. The policies of UAF appear to be aimed at creating violent confrontation, and instead of protecting the Muslim community, the UAF appears to encourage violence of a sort that can easily escalate into a situation that can cost lives. As it is, many young Muslims now are facing criminal charges as a result of UAF's incitements

Even if the UAF is not being deliberately cavalier with the value of people's lives, the fact that it engages in violent confrontation and has published no exhortations on its website for the violence to be "toned down" should be a warning to all. Any of the politicians who have been foolish enough to endorse this group should withdraw their support now or demand that it abandons physical confrontation. By publicly affiliating themselves with UAF, they are publicly defending its tactics of hostile confrontation. David Cameron - the head of the Conservative Party - should be shamed by his party members for supporting street warfare.

Other politicians listed as supporters of UAF are: from the Conservative Party: Peter Bottomley MP for Worthing West C), Edward Garnier MP for Harborough (C), Anthony Steen MP for Totnes (C) and Sir Teddy Taylor, former MP for Rochford and Southend East (C).

For the Liberal Democrats, Alistair Carmichael MP for Orkney and Shetland (LibDem), Paul Tyler former MP for North Cornwall (now in the House of Lords, LibDem) and Mike Hancock MP for Portsmouth South (LibDem). The only non-maintream party members are Adam Price MP for Carmarthen East (Plaid Cymru) and Rev W Martin Smyth former MP for Belfast South (Ulster Unionist).

All the other MPs listed on the UAF website as "supporters" are Labour members. These include some who are now retired. They are: Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London (L), Tony Benn former MP (L) President of the "Stop the War Coalition", Peter Hain MP for Neath (L), David Hanson MP for Delyn (L), Barbara Follett MP for Stevenage (L), Diane Abbott MP for Hackney (L), John Cryer former MP for Hornchurch (L), John Trickett MP for Hemsworth (L), Keith Vaz MP for Leicester East (L), Alice Mahon former MP for Halifax (L now resigned), Alan Meale MP for Mansfield (L), Ian Gibson former MP for Norwich North (L), Harry Cohen MP for Leyton & Wanstead (L), Betty Williams MP for Conway (L), Ken Purchase MP for Wolverhampton Northeast (L), Laura Moffatt MP for Crawley (L), Peter Bradley former MP for Wrekin (L), Vera Baird MP for Redcar (L), Bill Etherington MP for Sunderland North (L), Roger Berry MP for Kingswood (L), Angela Smith MP (L), Brian Iddon MP for Bolton South East (L), Colin Pickthall, former MP for West Lancashire (L retired), Clive Betts MP for Sheffield Attercliffe (L), Janet Anderson MP for Rossendale & Darwen (L), Neil Gerrard MP for Walthamstow (L), Jane Griffiths former MP for Reading East (L, deselected), Brian Donohue MP for Central Ayrshire (L), Helen Clark former MP for Peterborough (L), Terry Davis former MP for Birmingham, ,Hodge Hill (L, resigned), Janet Dean MP for Burton (L), Adrian Bailey MP for West Bromwich West (L), Louise Ellman MP for Liverpool Riverside (L), Eric Illsley MP for Barnsley Central (L), Kelvin Hopkins MP for Luton North (L), Ernie Ross former MP for Dundee West (L), Rob Marris MP for Wolverhampton South West (L), Martin Caton MP for Gower (L), Jim Sheridan MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (L), Martin Jones MP for Clwyd South (L), Colin Challen MP for Morley and Rothwell (L), David Wright MP for Telford (L), Rudi Vis MP for Finchley & Golders Green (L), Tony Worthington former MP for Clydebank & Milngavie (L), Julie Morgan MP for Cardiff North (L), Diana Organ former MP for Forest of Dean (L), Doug Henderson MP for Newcastle Upon Tyne North (L) and Barry Gardiner MP for Brent North (L).

One listed MP who is said to support the UAF - Derek Watts - does not even exist. He could either be Derek Wyatt MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Labour) or Dave Watts, MP for St Helens North (Labour).

Britain's Street Protests - What is going on? Part 3 of 4

Britain's Street Protests - What is going on? Part 3 of 4

PART THREE (OF FOUR)

Who is 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.

http://www.lancastergreenparty.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hope-not-hate.jpg

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:

"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 Choudreys henchmen, to show the rest of the online "patriot" movement the way forward.

If these 30 - 40 had not embarked on the initial anti Choudrey protests, then the EDL and other Defence Leagues would not be where they are now.
The Birmingham protests were a major success, the first one was unnanounced, 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 organised 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 organise 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". Youve truly opened the eyes of the public to who the real thugs and nazis are.

You deluded Communist fools are defending the Jihadists, whos intention is to impose Sharia law and an Islamic state upon us, and the irony is, if they achieved that aim, youd 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 the stated representative of UK Casuals, an individual named as "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 varying 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 is 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."

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Weyman3.jpg

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 counter-demonstrators 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, another had a chisel, and another had a spanner.

The Questionnaire

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/EDLMartinM.jpg

Originally I intended to send a set of six questions to Luton EDL members involved with organizing protests, and to then expand these. 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 email, 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 had suggested in an email 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 counter-demonstrators 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 organiser.

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

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/Paul_Ray.jpg

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 Majoroun 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 fulfil 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 descendents 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 publics 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 per cent.  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 Choudry’s extremist Islam4uk group, that has just reverted back to being the banned militant group Al Mujajiroun 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 Goth 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 regiments homecoming in luton, people tried to attck the protesters and two white people were arrested while the muslims were alowed to continue, this is like our grandfathers returning from ww2 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 wouldnt be happy, but its 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:

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/GashGravers.jpg

1) There were plenty of blogs describing what and how Islam was creeping towards controling 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 Islamisation 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 organisation.
 
However, the media are obssessed 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.

6) 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 condemn 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 hob-nobs 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.

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.

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/UnionJack.jpg

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, Patrick Gordon, 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 Labor." When the election results were announced, Griffiths taunted his opponent with comments that included "Where are your niggers now, Walker?"

http://morganinterviews.zoomshare.com/files/EnochPowell.jpg

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.

titler

Britain's Street Protests - What is going on? Part 3 of 4

PART THREE (OF FOUR)

Who is 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.

Unfortunately, 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:

"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 Choudreys henchmen, to show the rest of the online "patriot" movement the way forward.

If these 30 - 40 had not embarked on the initial anti Choudrey protests, then the EDL and other Defence Leagues would not be where they are now.
The Birmingham protests were a major success, the first one was unnanounced, 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 organised 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 organise 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". Youve truly opened the eyes of the public to who the real thugs and nazis are.

You deluded Communist fools are defending the Jihadists, whos intention is to impose Sharia law and an Islamic state upon us, and the irony is, if they achieved that aim, youd 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 the stated representative of UK Casuals, an individual named as "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 varying 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 is 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 PressTV 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 Islamisation 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 counter-demonstrators 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, another had a chisel, and another had a spanner.

The Questionnaire

Originally I intended to send a set of six questions to Luton EDL members involved with organizing protests, and to then expand these. 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 issue had been made out of alleged "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 email, and I promised the respondents that I would make no alterations to anything they said. I keep to that promise.

Paul Ray had suggested in an email 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 counter-demonstrators 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 organiser.

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 ANSWERS

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 Majoroun 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 fulfil 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 descendents 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 publics 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 Choudry 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 civilised 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 per cent.  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 Choudry’s extremist Islam4uk group, that has just reverted back to being the banned militant group Al Majoroun 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 Goth 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 regiments homecoming in luton, people tried to attck the protesters and two white people were arrested while the muslims were alowed to continue, this is like our grandfathers returning from ww2 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 wouldnt be happy, but its 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 controling 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 Islamisation 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 organisation.
 
However, the media are obssessed 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.

6) 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 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 does not represent the current strategies of the national and regional EDL groups,

I wonder at the Far Left - who condemn the open fear of Islam that is expressed by SIOE and others, openly accusing "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 it regards itself as upholding a "civilizational" form of Islam. The Far Left hob-nobs 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) 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 still wish to believe that the vast majority of Muslims are 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.

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 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, and for Muslims to be made into scapegoats for problems that were never created by them.

I know 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 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. Already Muslims are becoming victims of "anti-terrorism" legislation and profiling because of the actions of a few radicals. Islamophobia is now leading to discrimination, and injustice, and solutions must be found.

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. The law is no longer seen as a vehicle to protect a person, but a means to tyrannise - 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 790 public bodies.

The current Labour government has tampered with 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. Resentments have festered quietly for years, and the current situation is perhaps also symptomatic of the frustration with a government that treats its citizens as mere subjects, cogs in the machinery of 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.

The Influence of Politics

I remember the riots of the 1980s all too clearly and though they made - to use the Chinese expression - "interesting times" to live through, 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, Patrick Gordon, was expected to win. He lost, however, to a Tory called Peter Griffith, whose campaign slogan was: "If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labor." 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 intellect Enoch Powell 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 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, always need martyrs to give impetus to their cause. The Tolpuddle Martyrs (transported for holding a trade union meeting) have inspired British Trade Unionism. Powell's political "martyrdom" made him more of a 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

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.

Labour had 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 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 expected to resolve the current tensions in Britain, did not believe multiculturalism was working.