On the same day 37 years ago today, I went on my first march for women’s liberation in central London. We demanded an end to discrimination in education and the workplace, as well as contraception, abortion and nursery places for all who needed them. We protested about the demeaning way women were presented by various media and we challenged the ideology that women were responsible for the hateful way we were perceived and portrayed and for the sexual harrassment and violence visited upon us. 38 years ago, if I’d looked this far into the future, I would have expected International Women’s Day 2010 to be a day of celebration.

This post isn’t going to be an analysis of the successes and failures of the women’s movement. Suffice to say that I feel as if I live in a very different world nowadays to the one of my childhood — a world where so many people thought it was a waste of time for girls to get A’ levels, never mind go to university; a world where girls were told to aspire to marriage for “security” and to “give the children a name”; a world where women who reported sex crimes to the police came away feeling as if they were the criminals.

Undoubtedly, the bit of the world that I inhabit is a better place for women nowadays and the credit ultimately lies with all of us who’ve embraced the liberal and democractic values that are the legacy of the Enlightenment. However, that the world is still an agonisingly brutal and barbaric place for women the world over puts a dampener on things. And the absolute pits is that so many women living in liberal democracies — and benefitting from the reforms we fought for and won on their behalf — are kowtowing to a pernicious ideology that denies women our humanity and autonomy: the ideology that says ‘honour is between the the legs of women’* and we should cover ourselves from head to foot so that men can control their dicks.

Because — let’s be honest — that’s all it’s about. In the eyes of misogynists, women exist to serve men and fulfil a primarily sexual function. Women need to be cowed and controlled. Making them feel vulnerable and ashamed (or just beating the crap out of them) if they’re not covered up is but one way to do it.

A commenter on one of my previous blogs, who calls himself “Kope”, invited me to look at his blog and read how “Islam will win the clash of civilization”. There he sums up the ancient spiritual wisdom of his worldview very succinctly:

Women must take responsibility for their dress standards.
Dress like sluts, get treated like sluts. Its only natural.

To me the hijab represents the biggest symbol of women’s oppression and the most hateful insult to every woman who has struggled for justice and equality in the developed world. I initially assumed the news that Tower Hamlets were planning to build some great monstrosity of a hijab-shaped arch at the end of Brick Lane was a tasteless wind-up — some April fool story I’d missed at the time, perhaps. Alas, it was for real and I express my heartfelt thanks to every one of the 158 residents of the borough who objected. Whatever were those morons on the council thinking??

Naturally, there are varying degrees of loathesomeness in respect of this garment. I recall a Saudi student of mine who, while she was in London, wore the smallest headscarf she could get away with. She would have loved not to wear one at all, she said, but didn’t dare. That’s one end of the loathesomeness spectrum. Women wearing headscarves have become a familiar sight but I still hate to see the bloody things just because of what they represent — and I don’t mean the commitment to Islam, I mean the obsequious deference to misogyny. At the other end of the spectrum are the full-face veils and long robes she had to wear back home in Saudi, the like of which I never saw on the streets of London when I was a child but which are now almost commonplace. For crying out loud, they even brought out a burkha-wearing Barbie doll!

Let me just say that I am not concerned with what the Qu’ran says or how Muslims interpret it. Any argument that women should cover themselves up because that’s what it says in some old book is going to be lost on an atheist like me, especially when a high profile Muslim like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is so comprehensive in her condemnation of the veil.  (Edit: See also Saira Khan in the Daily Fail, Why I, as a British Muslim woman, want the burkha banned…) As far as I’m concerned, if God expected women to cover themselve up, he wouldn’t have made sunlight so important for the production of vitamin D. I have Muslim friends and not one wears the hijab. Well, if they did, they wouldn’t be my friends. I don’t want to be friends with people who celebrate what I have agonised over and fought against all my life.

Nuzhat Ahmed on wife swap

Just as any religious argument will be lost on me, I know my own argument will be lost on many hijab wearers reading this. Some of them have never even engaged their brain long enough to question the wearing of these odious garments for religious reasons; they do so because they’ve been indoctrinated from early childhood. Raising a child to believe that they must hide their hair, let alone their face, to be sure of avoiding “hellfire” is, in my opinion, a form of abuse. Yet that is what is happening in Muslim schools in Britain today, if the one featured on the Channel 4 TV series last year is anything to go by.

Then there was that episode of Wife Swap when the hijab-wearing mother, Nuzhat Ahmed, confessed that, yes, her  hijab was hot but “hell is hotter”. For shame!

I managed a smile for the camera

By the way, in keeping with my open-minded approach to life, I prefer to conduct empirical research and, to prove it, here’s a photo of me wearing a niqab purchased for a fiver on ebay together with the note I made when I first tried it on:

“As every specs wearer knows, seeing the frames of your glasses as you peer through them is something you get used to. I guess it would be the same for looking out from behind a niqab. At the moment everything has a thick black frame and it’s bugging the hell out of me. But the worst thing is not being able to breathe freely. I’m suffocating. And I can’t wear my glasses because they keep getting steamed up. I’ve been wearing it a mere 15 minutes and already I have a headache. It’s coming off.”

But — hey! — you can get used to anything, right?

For many hijab wearers in liberal democracies, hijab has become the badge of the club they belong to; a way to distinguish themselves and each other from members of other tribes. Just what we need in a multicultural society — let’s emphasise our differences, why don’t we?

Ed Hussain’s book, The Islamist, is illuminating:

To packed halls we brought speakers from different Islamist groups who explained why women must cover their hair, be different from non-Muslim women, and earn God’s approval. At the time there were a handful of young Muslim women at college who wore the hijab. This commanded my full support, but questions from teachers, and sometimes students, made the practice increasingly confrontational. We put pressure on unveiled Muslim women to join the ‘sisters’ who wore the hijab or risk being seen as un-Islamic rather than practising, proud Muslims. The resultant upsurge of hijab wearing took even us by surprise as scores of fashionable free-fllowing hairstyles disappeared from view.

…The sisters who wore the hijab put their mothers and older siblings to shame — the fact that young, educated, confident women at Tower Hamlets College wore the hijab sent a message to the wider community. They saw our sisters on buses, on the roads and at weddings, and slowly the hijab became a symbol of defiance of Western values and of a return to Islam.

And some of those sisters may even delude themselves that, as long as they are covered up, they won’t arouse the interest or star in the gross fantasies of men they don’t fancy. Let Ed Hussain disillusion you:

If the hijab was supposed to make a woman less attractive, then it clearly had not worked. Several society members commented to me that the women looked extraordinarily feminine and more desirable in the scarf than without. I shared that sentiment, but dared not express it.

…The craving to unclothe the excessively clothed was cruel.

Not that those hijab-wearers whose faces are unveiled but who wear a bucketload of make-up will be unaware of the effect the mixed message might be having but, in fairness, not all hijab wearers go around looking like that. At least some are consistent and go easy on the slap (and the beautiful ones look beautiful in spite of wearing hijab and the plain ones look plainer because of it — just my opinion).

Ask a lot of young women why they wear hijab and they will give an answer similar to a commenter on another blog of mine, who posted from Egypt.

I want to explain why we do wear that (Niqab)
First of all,I wear it as god demanded me
More over,you may noticed those who were niqab more than others ,but you didn’t any of their body details
as they didn’t expose them except for their husbands,not by force,but by love.
Women quality ;as no one can deny;is by her thoughts,beliefs and spirit.Not by her body.So what disturbs any body whether to see her body or not?!
when i am married ,i feel that no one has the right to see my beauty but him(and of course my father brother and those who don’t ever marry me)

In a nutshell, if women cover up, they will be judged on what they say and do, rather than on their looks. A woman’s beauty should be a gift of love to her husband. I suppose the same goes for a woman’s ugliness.

In other words, men are in thrall to their animal natures and can’t see past what women look like and it is women’s responsibility to protect men from themselves because asking them nicely not to rape us won’t work — they can’t help themselves, poor bastards. All of which might have been convincing had I lived in some earlier century before the shameless unveiled women of the world had gained the success, power and respect that so many have today.

Another deadly weapon in the hijab-defender’s armoury is to point to the dark side, the negative consequences of Western sex-obsessed culture. I can’t be bothered to list these — suffice to say I agree there is a dark side to Western sex-obsessed culture. That kind of even things up a bit, doesn’t it? But it’s a bit like homeopaths who defend the worthlessness of homeopathy by pointing to the problems of conventional medicine. The ugly side of my culture doesn’t make the ugly side of your culture — whether it be ‘honour killings’, genital mutilation, executing rape victims or any of the other atrocities committed against women for no good reason — any less ugly. Prostitution, it seems, takes place everywhere.  But at least we don’t flog or execute our prostitutes.

Nor would I defend the raunchy dress and behaviour some young women adopt solely for the purpose of pleasing men but, as this tends to be a phase young girls grow out of, the suggestion that it typifies Western culture is just daft. Most women, young or old, don’t dress or behave like that but hijab-defending male commentators on Western culture seem oblivous to that fact, preferring instead to perve over pictures of naked female flesh and proclaim the superiority of a culture that would rather have women suffocating in hideous shrouds. Kope, whom I mentioned earlier, has helpfully provided plenty of pictures of nubile young women in various states of undress on his website, in order to illustrate “how Islam will win the clash of civilizations”. Here’s a typical caption:

The  judeo-christian’s sodomites half naked on the beach because of christian’s god does not require dress code for women and men

It’s not clear how he thinks those pictures demonstrate the greater glory of Islam but so what? At least he gets to have a wank.

One final thing: in case, you think I’m building up to calling for a ban on the burkha in Britain, I’ll end by disabusing you of that notion. I agree with Andrew Copson on this one. I don’t defend liberal values one minute only to flush them down the pan the next. Even though it is repressive, divisive, insulting and intimidating, I would defend to their death the right of these women to flaunt their vicimtisation in any way they choose.

Just don’t expect me to get used to it.

*’Honour is between the legs of women’ is a chapter title from Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom’s, Does God Hate Women? — a book I possess but have so far found too horrific to read.

On 31st October 2009, thousands of Muslims from up and down the country plan to converge in the heart of Central London in a spectacular procession to make their demands for the overthrow of the British establishment clear.

At the time of writing, that message, which was posted on 4 March 2009, is still on the website of Islamist nutjobs, al-Muhajiroun. But a few days ago they added another message, in the form of a press release, saying that it had

become apparent that certain right-wing/anti-Islamic organisations had become intent on preventing the march from going ahead, using threats of physical violence, including bomb and death threats to any member of the Muslim community who happened to attend the march.

In light of this, organisers of the March4Shariah campaign, after careful consultation, have decided to relocate the march in favour of securing the safety of the hundreds of Muslims who may have attended the march to voice their support for the Deen of Haq (Truth).

Well, I’ll be blowed! The Islamist warriors who, earlier this year, had bravely stood protected by police officers on a Luton pavement and screamed abuse at the 2nd batallion of the Royal Anglian regiment’s homecoming parade, chicken out after a few anonymous hotheads threaten them? I mean, hello! What did they expect? That they could march through London slagging off the country that has given them the freedom to do so and that nobody would mind?

I wonder if they thought we wouldn’t notice that the proposed “thousands” who “planned to converge” on London had, nearly eight months later, shrunk to “hundreds” who “may have attended” if only those nasty men hadn’t been all horrid and started threatening people. Not that I would ever, of course, condone the threatening of any sort of violence against anyone. Indeed, normally I wouldn’t hesitate to condemn such behaviour. But in this instance the condemnation sort of sticks in my throat and I can’t quite bring myself to voice it, for some reason. I don’t even know if these threats actually took place and, if they did, whether they were the real reason the march was cancelled. Who cares?

On Saturday, I was delighted to join Muslims, ex-Muslims and others in a protest against al-Muhajiroun.

The occasion was even more enjoyable knowing that the “spectacular procession” the Islamists had boasted of had been, let’s say, re-invented as a secret rally somewhere away from the public eye. Did it take place at all? I’ve no idea. To be strictly truthful, I admit I was a tiny bit disappointed not to get any photos of the nutjobs in their fancy dress costumes.

In order to comprehend just how batshit insane these people are, I recommend watching a bit of the video of the press conference that accompanies the latest press release and learn how only Allah can legislate and any Muslims in parliament or the House of Lords are not considered “true believers” because they have taken the role of legislator on themselves. The nutjobs also share some of their vision of how the UK will look under Sharia.

The pic is of Stringfellows nightclub with a police notice across it saying ‘closed’. The pink advertising board in front of it says, “Women’s college coming soon.”

Got it? Strip clubs and nightclubs (the same thing, as far as they are concerned) will be closed because they are disgusting places where women are exploited. UK under Sharia will be a an official ‘no fun’ zone and women will be educated separately.

It’s easy to snigger but it’s not their lunatic vision for the UK that matters rather than the fact that Sharia Law is creeping in and affecting the lives of people in this country and not in a good way, whatever the nutjobs might claim. At the launch of the One Law for All campaign at the House of Lords back in December last year, we heard disturbing stories from a Muslim woman about women in her community in the North of England appealing to religious tribunals over forced marriages and domestic violence only to be told to stay with their husbands and, believing that the Sharia court had the final say on the matter, that’s what they did. It doesn’t matter what rights women may have in reality if they don’t have the freedom — and in some cases the language — to access them.

The self-styled anti-fascists of the ultra left, by the way, don’t seem to have a clue about this. A typical view is expressed on this forum:

The threat of sharia is a bogey man to whip up people on the far right to support racist policies…The BNP and scummy little tory rags like the Sun, the mail, the telegraph make up stories about Muslims to help the right wing grow and to divide the working class.

On facebook, a page appeared advertising a Protest against March4Sharia and the EDL! It including a long diatribe explaining that the involvement of BNP members in the English Defence League (EDL) “reveals their true agenda; they are racists. Wherever such forces find room to organise, they pose an immediate physical threat to ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and others.” They also include a more reasonable point about how the dangers of the Islamists are exaggerated by the press and by the far right but, viewed as a whole, the piece gives the impression that these people neither know nor care that much about Sharia in Britain. The point that you don’t have to be a radical islamist to take advantage of Sharia law and that it’s enough just being a violent husband in a close-knit Muslim community anywhere in Britain, is lost on them. What the loony left seem to want is any excuse to go out and confront people they perceive to be right-wing racists or fascists. Whether such people are indeed racists or not, doesn’t seem to concern them in the slightest.

But the most disgusting thing about them was their disdain for the protest I joined myself because, according to them, the Muslims (and friends) for Secular Democracy,

in addition to failing to mention the English Defence League, essentially waves the Union Jack and endorses the British legal, political and social status quo. We do not believe that bourgeois liberalism can effectively challenge the growth of either Islamism or fascism, both of which feed off the social decay and despair of British society today.

I don’t know what became of the planned protest from the loony Trots because they never showed up. Perhaps they couldn’t get permission. They weren’t missed.

The 40 or so supporters of the EDL who did turn up to oppose Al-Muhajiroun seemed amiable enough. I eavesdropped on an interview with one of them in which he gave the standard EDL message that they are not racist, they welcome anyone of any race or creed who opposes Islamic extremists. It would appear the EDL have a tiny number of black and Asian supporters and on their website forum I’ve seen people they would describe as “moderate Muslims” warmly welcomed and encouraged to join. The accusations by anti-fascist groups that the EDL are a nazi organisation with links to the BNP are beginning to sound tired and a bit desperate.

The EDL who emerged earlier this year out of spontaneous protests in response to the Al-Muhajiroun demo in Luton, is not (as yet) a membership organisation. It doesn’t have a constitution or policies as such. It is just a loose association of working class and overwhelmingly male “supporters” and, having been observing them pretty closely for a couple of months now, I surmise that they include some people who are BNP sympathisers and many who are not. The BNP have publicly disdained them and threatened their members with disciplinary action if they attend EDL events.

The EDL focus is not on race but on Islamic extremism and the threat to British cultural heritage and way of life, which they seem to think is a lot greater than it is — thanks, no doubt to people like the Archbishop of Canterbury. The (self-appointed, it seems) EDL leaders are making every effort to package the group as a multiracial one and appeals for people to behave nicely are circulated before every demo, a number of which have taken place so far in several of Britain’s cities. (Behaving nicely in EDL terms means not shouting abuse at innocent spectators in hijab, or making seig heil salutes. It doesn’t preclude them shouting E-E-EDL and sounding like a bunch of lobotomised apes).

As I said in an earlier post, the most objectionable thing about the EDL is not their politics but their puerile nationalism. Frankly, most of them don’t have the brains to be political thinkers and that lack of cerebral power is something they have in common with both the BNP and the UAF, as far as I’m concerned. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which group’s supporters are the biggest overdosers on stupid pills.

In stark contrast, witness the wit and intelligence of the British Muslims for secular democracy as evidenced by this short promotional video for Saturday’s protest:

Finally, here’s a reminder:

Saturday 21 November 2009
Time: 1200-1400
Venue: North Carriage Drive, Hyde Park, London (Closest underground: Marble Arch)

“Show your opposition to Sharia Law and all religious based tribuanls….Demand one secular law and universal rights.” More here.

Related posts by skepticat:

EDL, UAF…WTF?

Loony Islamists mistake Humanist centre for Mosque

No Sharia: One Law for All!

Anyway. Aware that the messages of the newly emerged EDL (which seems to have evolved from a group calling themselves Casuals United) and the Stop Islamification of Europe group (SIOE) have resonated with at least a few nice, respectable, secularist folk, I decided to take a closer look at what they and their opponents are about.

As a former card-carrying Communist who participated in demonstrations against the National Front in the late 1970s, the UAF might seem the natural choice for me. I certainly applaud anyone who stands up to be counted in opposition to the British National Party who, in spite of their protestations of respectability nowadays, remain inexorably racist, judging by their website.

However, a skim through the UAF website flags up a disappointing inability on this group’s part to distinguish between the BNP and others who are protesting about radical Islam. They are all fascists, as far as the UAF are concerned; they are all racist hooligans and bigots with “links to the BNP”. A recent demonstration in Harrow by SOIE is described on the UAF website as a protest by “racist bigots including the BNP-linked English Defence League”. In fact, the EDL made it clear on their website that the Harrow event was nothing to do with them. Furthermore, prior to the demo, the BNP National Organiser, Eddie Butler, announced that,

It will be a disciplinary offence for British National Party members to associate or participate in any event or activity organised by the English Defence League or hold membership of the English Defence League.

The reasons for this proscription are that the English Defence League, through its activities, brings nationalist and patriotic politics into disrepute. If the English Defence League is not instigated by and its activities are not encouraged by the state (which it quite possibly is), then the track record of this organisation shows that it is run by people who will only bring discredit and probable arrest for anyone who attends its events.

LMAO at the “encouraged by the state part”. I wonder if Butler thinks the moon landings were a hoax, that Princess Diana was deliberately murdered, etc., etc.

(Edited to add a link to this risible thread from a fascist forum revealing what BNP supporters really think of the EDL.)

For their part, the EDL leaders are trying very hard to send out a message that they are not racist and I can’t see anything on their website to indicate that they are. Their members’ forum, for example, carries this warning: The EDL will not tolerate any racist or Islamaphobic behaviour on this forum. We are against Islamic Extremists and all that they stand for, but do not want innocent Muslims being victimised or abused.

Of course, if you hold up placards in city centres saying ‘no more mosques’, this might just be interpreted as victimising innocent Muslims, especially those who don’t have a mosque to attend anywhere near them and would quite like one built.

Says the EDL National Organiser, Trevor Kelway:

Our message is very clear – Remove Islamic Fundamentalists from our streets, and Remove ALL practice of Shari’ah Law in England.

Source

The EDL welcomes anyone, so they claim, as long as they share their opposition to Islamic fundamentalism.

‘Black & white unite,’ said one of their placards at their 8th August demo in Birmingham. ‘We hate Nazis as much as we hate Muslim extremists,’ said another. In this vid, a group of masked EDL supporters — including a couple of black guys — are shown burning a nazi flag. In the subsequent interview they defend their sinister head attire by comparing it to the burkha (a good point, I think but not articulated strongly enough by their spokesman) and they reiterate that they are not racist, they are simply against “Islamic extremism”.

Just what bits of the religious and cultural practices of Muslims might be acceptable to EDL members is not clear but I suspect the answer is none. While they shout for the removal of terrorists from our streets, it seems that all Muslims who dress the part and who identify as Muslims above all else are regarded with suspicion by EDL supporters and I think this conflation of issues is part of their image problem. They just not very convincing as anti-racists. A quote from its forum (actually posted on the SDL (Scottish) section) is fairly typical of the views expressed there:

Any right thinking person on this Planet can see that Fanatical muslims are whipping up hate against the rest of the world. they want to convert us or kill us. their teachings come from a book wrote in barbaric times. if the 50 million plus non muslims of this country do not stand up to these nutters soon those Barbaric times will return. the muslims will not try and live peacefully along side us once they have enough of them living here to fight us.

Of course, they’re not paranoid or anything. Their output and strategy of holding public demos with provocative placards appears to be a kneejerk reaction that can contribute plenty to the tensions caused by any rise in radical Islam in this country but nothing towards a workable solution to the problem. For all their protestations, the EDL come across as anti-Muslim, which is bad, as well as anti-Islamism, which I support.

As for the UAF, it seems to consider any opposition to alien religious and cultural practices to be racist and they apply the label to any group their Muslim supporters feel threatened by. And I think the same can probably be said for Searchlight, an organisation I’ve always respected but who this week emailed readers of its Hope not Hate blog, mobilising them to oppose the EDL demo in Manchester and calling them,

a violent group of anti-Islamic football hooligans who are hell bent on whipping up interfaith tension through violence and intimidation…In truth, this isn’t about religion. It’s about figures on the far right trying to create fear and tension within and between communities – and then capitalise on this division.

Scepticism makes a party pooper out of one. If I’d received that email when I was twenty, I would have swallowed it whole. “So it’s not about religion! It’s about dividing and ruling communities! Yes, yes, of course it is. If you say so it must be true!” And I’d be all fired up to get out on the streets and yell, “Nazi scum!” at them, buoyed up by the heady feeling of solidarity with my hundreds of unwashed comrades who stand beside me doing the same thing.

But nowadays, with a bullshit dectector that has spent more than 30 years in development, I can but ask: Where is the evidence? What does the sender of this email know that I don’t and how does he know it? We are not given this information, either in the email or in the webpage it links to. The only evidence I’ve seen on what the EDL might have been planning are emails sent by their National Organiser to people registered on their internet forum. Here’s an extract:

We have been informed that the UAF and their friends plan to disrupt our demonstration in whatever way they can (goes to form really!)

DO NOT REACT TO THEM.

It is their sole purpose to be, how do i put it, a pain in the Arse!

They will try to disrupt our 2 min silence for our Troops, our National anthem, everything. Let them. We are going to show the world that we are the peaceful protesters that we say we are on Sat, no exceptions. The Worlds media are going to be present, and i mean crews from New Zealand to America will be there. Do NOT react to any intimidation whatsoever, just act as if they are not even there.

Remember, we are a peaceful Protest community against the un-opposed rise of Radical Islam in our Country. We need to show the world what pack’s of animals we have to contend with just to speak up against this in our “Democratic” Country. The press are waiting to portray us as the animals, do not fall for the UAF’s provocative tactics, lets show the World the UAF for what they really are.

So, to all who want to say enough to the rise of Radical Islam in this Country, be in the above locations on time, or you will find yourselves forced to the other side of the fence, or away from the demo by the Police.

(Contrast this with a report by a member of the opposition on what happened from their perspective and spot the irony.)

At the time of writing, I haven’t seen any more videos of today’s demo but, according to this televised report from the Islam news channel about the Birmingham demo in August, the EDL supporters were relatively peaceful and civilized, in stark contrast to their opponents in the UAF, whose numbers were inflated by a couple of hundred of young Muslims and who behaved like Unhinged Aggressive Fuckwits. Some of them we see rampaging through the streets, while others are shown beating the crap out of some poor sod.

Such behaviour is not likely to be of concern to the UAF, whose purpose, according to their website is simply to alert “British society to the rising threat of the extreme right, in particular the British National Party (BNP), gaining an electoral foothold in this country”. A laudable aim, indeed, and I wish they’d stick to it but their response to the EDL indicates they are motivated less by a wish to defend human rights than by a wish to defend Islam in Britain from any perceived threat, real or imaginary. It’s the UAF’s culturally relativistic perspective and the inhumanity implied in it is that persuades this veteran anti-racist against giving the UAF the time of day.

I’m not naive, however, and although I currently feel able to defend the EDL’s stated objectives from the charges of racism and fascism, I’m not suggesting that none of the people who turn up to EDL demonstrations are racist or bigots or BNP voters — I bet loads are. I’ve seen some (questionable) evidence of one or two people who might be EDL supporters giving nazi salutes.  The EDL’s National Organiser has friends on facebook who just happen to have identical names to people on the BNP membership list that was leaked in November 2008. Others adopt cunning pseudonyms like A.N Englishman and Wewantour Countryback.

Many others use their (presumably) real names and nail their ‘patriotism’ to the mast by sporting the St George’s flag for an avatar. Patriotism is big thing for the EDL website and I know patriotism isn’t racism — I’m quite patriotic myself and not racist at all. But when it’s an obsessive patriotism, when it’s the thing that you most want people to know about you, when you sport a frigging flag for your facebook avatar rather than a pic of yourself, your family or even your dog, it actually seems quite intimidating and divisive. Like the burkha. Really, the EDL reminds me of those Muslims who wave their religion like a flag in my face. The UAF and the EDL are two rival tribes, both locked into a confrontational mentality, which prevents them from playing nicely together and trying to engage with each other like sensible grown-ups.

Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire.

The quote comes from Winston Churchill’s ‘Finest Hour’ speech on the eve of the Battle of Britain, which has been chosen by the EDL as the soundrack of their promotional video on the front page of their website. The vid itself is of a series of photos of the aftermath of the 7/7 bombings and EDL demos.

I have great affection for and pride in this country and its people but I also feel a modicum of guilt and shame for its darker side —  both historical and present day —  and I would usually distance myself from displays of jingoism. It’s not England, as such, or “Christian civilisation” or “our own British life”, I want to defend but the liberal democratic traditions, secular culture and scientific worldview that are the legacy of the Enlightenment. For all I may defend them from the rantings of the wild-eyed trots of the lunatic fringe, I do see an ideological link between the EDL and the BNP and that link is not fascism but nationalism — something I also abhor. That’s why this patriot would steer clear of the EDL. That and the impression that a lot of them seem a bit thick.

Edited to add this video, which underlines my point.

EDL escorted to Victoria Station

I’ve had less time to look at SOIE but what I’ve seen so far is a group who decided it would be an excellent idea to commemorate 9/11 by staging some sort of pathetic protest outside a mosque near where I live. That’s right, a mosque — you know, one of those places where some of the ordinary, peaceful British citizens who happen to be Muslim go to worship their god? I mean, for crying out loud! What exactly was the point? I know the excuse was the — so far unconfirmed — rumour that the mosque is to be the location of a Sharia court (and I won’t be in the least surprised if this turns out to be true) but my question is really about what the protesters expected to achieve by such provocation?

In contrast to the EDL’s more confused message, the SIOE makes it crystal clear that all Muslims are the enemy. From its website,

SIOE, does not accept the notion of moderate Muslims. This makes SIOE different to all other anti-Islamist groups who only oppose Islamist “extremists”.

Well that’s just idiotic. Moderate muslims exist, whether or not SIOE accepts the notion of them. I number moderate Muslims amongst my friends and acquaintances. What’s more, although SIOE proclaim racism to be the lowest form of stupidity, on its website appears the following exortation:

If people are inclined towards the BNP, NF, EFP or any other political party who seem to do nothing other than ride on the backs of other organisations’ efforts, merely for their own publicity, or try to infiltrate groups that actually do something then please join these parties and motivate them to actively do something themselves. Just don’t tell those who are actually doing something their efforts are useless then spoil it for them by promoting these parties on videos of events organised by groups who have nothing to do with the BNP, NF or EFP etc.

So racism is the lowest form of stupidity but people should join established racist organisations and try to get them to “do something themselves”.  OK, got it.

While I can understand and to some extent share the anger that draws people to groups like the EDL and the SIOE, I believe their provocative tactics and sloganeering will make them the unwitting recruiting sergeants of militant Islam and I hope secularists and freethinkers and anyone else who is horrified at atrocities committed by Muslims — be they acts of international terrorism or private so-called ‘honour killings’ of young women — and angered by the importation of backward, divisive and oppressive religious and cultural traditions, will steer well clear and lend their support instead to intelligent, progressive initiatives like the One Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of ex-Muslims. You don’t have to be an ex-Muslim to join!

Finally, a date for your diaries:

Saturday 21 November 2009
Time: 1200-1400
Venue: North Carriage Drive, Hyde Park, London (Closest underground: Marble Arch)

“Show your opposition to Sharia Law and all religious based tribuanls….Demand one secular law and universal rights.”  More here.

A demo motivated by concern for human rights not nationalism. Be there if you care about human rights…but, whatever side you’re on, leave the flags and inane slogans at home, please.