From a current discussion thread on the English Defence League’s Facebook page:
For the meaning of “1488” see here.
Category Archives: UK
EDL discusses Tower Hamlets demonstration
Expose draws our attention to a post on the EDL’s Facebook page yesterday under the title “EDL MASSIVE GOING TOWER HAMLETS”.
The comments feature the usual vile anti-Muslim abuse:
At one point in the “discussion” a Muslim provoked the EDL supporters by posting a comment (which was immediately deleted). Note how the EDL admin intervenes to defend the threat of violence:
Goodbye EDL – and don’t come back
City leaders have condemned English Defence League protesters who marched through Portsmouth – telling them: “Don’t come back”. The clear message came after hundreds of EDL members snaked through the city centre on Saturday as part of a planned protest.
Organisers had promised a peaceful event and deny their campaign has racist undertones. But there were ugly scenes at times as the event threatened to spill over into violence. At the very start of the march police had to stand firm to stop EDL members surging forward before the official start time.
Some of the group of around 500 marchers were heard spouting vile racist abuse and making insulting references to Allah. At one point some of the marchers paused to jeer at an Asian family who had stepped onto their balcony to see the parade pass by.
Some EDL members made a beeline for a scaffolding van in a bid to grab poles, but were thwarted by police. And at the end of the event police averted a potential clash as marchers tried to get into Guildhall Square where anti-fascist protesters had gathered for their own rally in defence of multiculturalism.
Saturday saw seven arrests of EDL supporters on suspicion of crimes ranging from public order offences to assaulting a police officer. Two “counter protesters” who were among 150 people taking part in the demonstration in Guildhall Square were also arrested but released without charge at the scene, Hampshire Constabulary said.
EDL marchers travelled from all over the country to take part in the march, the first of its kind in Hampshire. Supporters came from divisions including those in West Yorkshire, Berkshire, London, Plymouth, Essex, Brighton and Colchester. Hampshire police mounted a huge operation involving around 400 officers after similar events elsewhere in the country had sparked trouble.
After the march, MP Mike Hancock said he did not ever want to see the group in Portsmouth again.
“I don’t want to see them here at all,” said the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South. “I would much prefer if they came nowhere near us. But sadly they have persisted in doing it. I think they are pointless.
“I hope they will now leave Portsmouth and not come back. What I don’t get is how people want to come all the way from Plymouth to demonstrate on the streets of Portsmouth. It must have been five or six to one people from outside the city.”
His views were echoed by city council leader Gerald Vernon-Jackson, who was in the city centre on Saturday as he watched the protest unfold.
He said: “We don’t want it here. I wish they would leave Portsmouth alone. On the whole people get on well between communities. They all mix up pretty well. In lots of other cities there are areas where different communities live. We have a well-integrated city and that’s how we should remain.”
See also “Portsmouth antiracists take over square in protest against EDL”, UAF news report, 17 July 2011
Watchdog recommends Tory U-turn on banning Hizb ut-Tahrir
The counter-terrorism watchdog has recommended that the government back down on a manifesto promise to ban a British radical Islamist group.
In a report submitted to parliament, David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says he does “not recommend changes to the system for proscription” that would allow the non-violent organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir to be banned.
As recently as May this year, David Cameron was explicit about his desire to see the group banned. In reply to a question from the Labour MP and former home secretary Alan Johnson, he said: “We are clear that we must target groups that promote extremism, not just violent extremism. We have proscribed one or two groups. I would like to see action taken against Hizb ut-Tahrir, and that review is under way.”
It is understood that Anderson’s review is likely to force the government into a U-turn over the issue. In his report Anderson said there were “formidable difficulties” to changing the proscription system, “which appear amply to justify the decision to stick with the status quo”.
In the aftermath of the 7 July attacks Tony Blair promised to ban HT but failed to get around legal obstacles. Currently only groups involved in violence or those directly “glorifying terrorism” can lawfully be banned.
In opposition, Cameron raised the issue during Gordon Brown’s first prime minister’s question time, asking: “We think it [Hizb ut-Tahrir] should be banned – why has this not happened?” In 2009 Cameron again upbraided Brown for not banning the group.
The Tory 2010 election manifesto was explicit in its promise to ban the group. It stated that a Conservative government would “ban any organisation which advocates hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir.”
Tory ministers have backed the pledge to ban the group. In 2009 the then shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said in a speech to his party conference: “I will immediately ban Hizb ut Tahrir.” In November of that year, the shadow education minister, Michael Gove, said a Tory government would proscribe the group, which has branches in dozens of other countries around the world.
Anderson told the Guardian he believed that the government would ultimately drop its plans to ban the group. “I’m not part of the government … but I’m aware that it has been very carefully looked at … and I’m not aware of any immediate plans to put them on the list,” he said.
Lord Carlile, the previous counter-terrorism reviewer, told the Guardian he was not aware of any plans to ban the group and believed that the government would be forced into a U-turn. “I don’t think anything is going to happen … I think the general view is that Hizb ut-Tahrir are best dealt with in public debate rather than by proscription,” he said.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We welcome David Anderson’s thorough and considered report – his first on the operation of the terrorism acts since becoming the independent reviewer. He has raised a number of issues and made detailed recommendations which we will consider carefully and respond to formally in the autumn.”
We look forward to The Spittoon denouncing David Anderson and Lord Carlile for having come to much the same conclusion about Hizb ut-Tahrir as Islamophobia Watch has.
EDL supporters call for bombing of Dudley mosque
Breastfeeding is banned – it offends Muslims
Apparently it’s not just Christmas that has been banned because it offends Muslims but public breastfeeding too.
Last week the Daily Mail published a report under the headline “Breast-feeding mother ‘told to leave council headquarters because she would offend Muslim visitors’.” The Metro covered the story too, headlining their report “Breastfeeding mother ‘told to leave centre to prevent offending Muslims’.”
As the Press Not Sorry blog has pointed out, there is no evidence presented, either in the Mail or Metro articles or in the original Oldham Evening Chronicle report on which they were based, that the officials at Oldham’s Civic Centre who (entirely illegally) asked Emma Mitchell not to breastfeed her 19-week-old son in the building made any reference to Muslims.
The nearest we get to finding any basis for the “offence to Muslims” angle is in the Metro report, which quotes Mrs Mitchell as saying: “A member of the complaints department said, ‘You’ve caused an uproar in there.’ She must have been talking about the Asian people who were in a room.”
The Mail has since amended its report. The article originally began: “A breast-feeding mother has been ordered out of council offices after staff said it would ’cause an uproar’ among Muslim visitors, it has been claimed.” This has now been changed to: “A mother was ordered not to breastfeed her baby in public because she was in a ‘multicultural building’.”
So the Mail can’t pretend it is unaware of the inaccuracy of its original report. But that hasn’t prevented the paper retaining its misleading headline blaming the problem on Muslims.
Herman Cain: Americans have the right to ban mosques in their communities
Herman Cain said Sunday that Americans should be able to ban Muslims from building mosques in their communities.
“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” Cain said in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”
Last week, the Republican presidential candidate expressed criticism of a planned mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, telling reporters at a campaign event that “This is just another way to try to gradually sneak Sharia law into our laws, and I absolutely object to that.”
“This isn’t an innocent mosque,” Cain said.
On Fox News Sunday, Wallace pressed him about those comments. “Let’s go back to the fundamental issue,” Cain said. “Islam is both a religion and a set of laws – Sharia laws. That’s the difference between any one of our traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes.”
“So, you’re saying that any community, if they want to ban a mosque…” Wallace began. “Yes, they have the right to do that,” Cain said.
See also Mediaite, 17 July 2011
Update: See “Local Muslim representative says Cain’s comments hurtful”, Daily News Journal, 18 July 2011
Three EDL members in court over Cambridge demo
An English Defence League supporter who clashed with Asian men after a protest march cannot carry out his community work as part of a multi-ethnic group, a court heard.
Nathan Hopkins appeared before magistrates in Huntingdon when he was accused of being part of a group of English Defence League (EDL) members who got embroiled in a fight outside the Queen Anne Terrace car park, Cambridge, after a march through the city last Saturday. One of the Asians was punched in the head repeatedly during the fracas by Hopkins, prosecutor Laura Mardell told the court.
The 18-year-old, of Lombardy Drive, Peterborough, admitted using threatening behaviour and was given a 12-month community order, with 40 hours of unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs.
Magistrates requested a report on whether Hopkins would be suitable for community work and the court probation officer said that although he was suitable, the nature of the offence meant he could not take part in the multi-cultural work teams and would have to go on an individual placement.
Ms Mardell said Hopkins told police he had gone to Cambridge with a group of 20 other EDL supporters and he had been a member of the EDL since December 2010, “joining after believing too many extremists were coming into the country”.
Two other EDL supporters also appeared before magistrates charged with public order offences. Simon Pearson, 28, of Whitehill Road, Abbey, Cambridge, denied using threatening words and behaviour in the area of Christ’s Pieces and his case was adjourned to August 31.
Shaun Hughes, 48, of Wethersfield Road, Colchester, was accused of using threatening behaviour and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. Hughes was released on bail until August 18 with conditions that he does not attend any EDL rallies or enter Cambridgeshire apart from for court appearances.
Ms Mardell said Hopkins’ case arose when a group of around 10 EDL supporters clashed with a group of Asian men in the Parkside area. A fight started and police saw Hopkins punching an Asian man in the head three or four times.
Three convicted after racist attack on Islamic college
An angry mob shouted racist abuse at the gates of an Islamic college, sparking a confrontation with Muslim students, a court heard.
A bottle and stones were thrown after the group of drunken teenagers goaded residents at the college, in Willows Lane, Deane, in March last year. Two of the group climbed the gates to confront students but were beaten up and taken to hospital, Bolton Crown Court was told.
Niall Briercliffe, Barry Lomax, Aaron Buckley and Bhavesh Patel all admitted affray.
Patel, aged 19, of Brandon Street, Daubhill, was first to enter the college but after he threw missiles about five students rounded on him, leaving him unconscious with a suspected fractured skull. Buckley, aged 18, of Canterbury Grove, Daubhill, told a doctor he had been attacked with a cricket bat and hit in the face with a brick. Police investigated the two defendants’ injuries but no charges were brought.
Briercliffe and Lomax stayed behind the gates of the college with a group of others, who swore, shouted racist abuse and some threw stones.
Sentencing, Recorder Brian Cummings QC said: “You went into the grounds of the college, making confrontation almost inevitable.”
Patel was given a 10-month sentence suspended for two years and ordered to complete 100 hours unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £100 compensation. Buckley was given a six-month sentence suspended for two years and ordered to complete 60 hours unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £100 costs.
Lomax, aged 18, of Horeb Street, Bolton, was given a 10-month sentence suspended for two years and ordered to complete 100 hours unpaid work. He was ordered to pay £100 compensation. Briercliffe, aged 17, of Church Avenue, Daubhill, was given a 12-month youth rehabilitation order and ordered to complete 200 hours unpaid work.
Quilliam’s ‘Former EDL members speak out’ stunt unravels
Our friends at Quilliam have proudly announced that they will be holding a roundtable event next week at which ex-members of the English Defence League will condemn their former organisation.
This would appear to be in line with the view promoted at the Summit Against Violent Extremism in Dublin last month, with which Quilliam was actively involved, namely that individuals who have renounced extremist violence are among the best placed people to campaign against it.
As Quilliam’s publicity for the 20 July roundtable explains, while the EDL has gained prominence through its often violent public activities, “relatively little is known about the group’s internal workings, its methods of recruitment, its overall strategy and its future plans. For the first time ever, Quilliam is able to bring together former senior members of the EDL who have renounced the group and are willing to speak out against it publicly and to answer questions about the organisation and their time inside it.”