The inspiration for this post comes from a quote allegedly spoken by Winton Churchill – the fascism of the future will come under the banner of anti-fascism.
The phrase was used by Tommy Robinson, the lead spokesman for the English Defence League (EDL) - an anti-Islam protest group, on a recent BBC debate show. He used the phrase in response to a comment about the violent behaviour of ‘anti-fascism’ protestors. Whether or not Churchill actually said this quote is unclear, but it is known that he made a public statement criticising Islam.
The debate on The Big Questions was: Are we too complacent about the far right? (video below)
This post discusses the meaning of the word 'complacent' in this question, and if we, as a country, are taking the right approach to this problem.
* * *
The use of the term ‘far right’ is to be expected from the BBC, which is widely considered to have a liberal ‘cultural’ bias. The term ‘far right’ is now widely used to describe any organisation in which the white working class meets anti-immigration sentiment. The debate was therefore focused on the far right of English/Christian culture and not the Islamic far right which the EDL claims to oppose.
The purpose of the show was therefore to allow Tommy Robinson to have his fair say, while maintaining the prejudgement that his views were ‘far right’ or ‘extreme.’ Indeed the debate was structured so that Tommy Robinson would be attacked by the presenter of the programme and also be outnumbered by a selection of spokesmen from left leaning think-tanks, journalists and a Labour MP.
The BBC has chosen similar formats to this in the past when a guest is deemed to be controversial. For example, when inviting Nick Griffin onto Question Time, the presenter did manage to keep his impartiality, but it was generally agreed that the other panel members and the audience would attack him. The difference this time around, of course, is that the EDL cannot be so easily categorised as being ‘racist,’ as the organisation does contain black, Asian, gay, Jewish and Sikh members.
Despite the one-sided set up for the programme, it was, nonetheless, a good debate. However, there were several worrying aspects to it, which are not just limited to this BBC programme, but also common to participants of this debate in the UK in general.
Firstly, there was no common understanding of the question. Some interpreted the question in different ways. ‘Are we too complacent about the far right?’ could mean, and was understood by many to mean - should we, as a nation, do more to condemn and limit the actions of the EDL, presumably through some form of government action, in order to stop the organisation from growing?
Another understanding of the question, which fewer people recognised, is – should we, as a nation, do more to listen to the grievances of people that join the EDL, in order to stop the organisation from growing?
In other words, does being ‘complacent,’ mean that we are not opposing the EDL enough, or that we are not listening to the EDL enough?
We all agree that the UK would be a better place without the EDL, but the BBC takes the view that in order to tackle the problem, we don’t need to look so much at the root causes of why people are joining the EDL, but that instead we should deal with the problems that the EDL causes separately from the problems that cause it.
Secondly, there is a general lack of understanding and frequent misuse of the word fascism. In short, fascism is a political ideology, movement, or regime, with central authoritarian command, which is violently intolerant of all individual or minority rights, beliefs, races, or religions. A fascist government therefore, would be a dictatorship which outlaws any other beliefs and political ways of thinking, and actively seeks to mobilise the nation to purge itself of any ‘inferior’ culture and lineage.
The EDL, therefore, despite the violent and abusive tendencies of many protestors, is a movement that directly opposes fascism. The fundamental interpretations of Sharia, as called for by various small groups of Islamists in the UK, is a strict authoritarian code of conduct, the defiance of which is punishable with violence, and in which non-Muslims, non-males and non-heterosexuals have significantly diminished rights and freedoms. It is a form of fascism, whose followers describe it as being one and the same with their religion - the supreme and infallible law of God.
In the UK we have freedom of religion, in that we are all free to follow whichever religion we chose. But when an interpretation of a particular religion advocates and seeks to spread the intolerance of other religions, should it not be treated differently? And is it right that the people that oppose it are themselves labelled as fascists?
When the EDL go on marches in England, they are frequently met by counter demonstrations, comprised sometimes of groups of Muslims bystanders or local residents who, quite rationally, feel hatred for the EDL, and frequently by a group that call themselves Unite Against Fascism (UAF).
UAF is an organisation that opposes the BNP and the EDL by organising rallies and counter demos and likening these groups to Nazism. But the group is not against all fascism; despite being called ‘unite against fascism,’ they have no intention of uniting with the EDL to oppose religious fascism. Instead they rally protestors to protest against people that are already protesting! It would actually be quite comical if it wasn’t such a serious subject.
Recognition of UAF by mainstream political parties is often taken as a general acceptance that they are a force for good, but it is dangerous to assume that there is only one legitimate anti-fascism movement. The group is funded mainly through sources linked to trade unions and the ‘far left’ Socialist Workers Party, and they have been criticised for being somewhat selective in their condemnations and for inciting violence. The danger is that only the radical left is being allowed to define what is and what isn’t fascism. ‘The fascism of the future’ could wish for no better ally than ‘anti-fascism.’
UAF is an organisation that opposes the BNP and the EDL by organising rallies and counter demos and likening these groups to Nazism. But the group is not against all fascism; despite being called ‘unite against fascism,’ they have no intention of uniting with the EDL to oppose religious fascism. Instead they rally protestors to protest against people that are already protesting! It would actually be quite comical if it wasn’t such a serious subject.
Recognition of UAF by mainstream political parties is often taken as a general acceptance that they are a force for good, but it is dangerous to assume that there is only one legitimate anti-fascism movement. The group is funded mainly through sources linked to trade unions and the ‘far left’ Socialist Workers Party, and they have been criticised for being somewhat selective in their condemnations and for inciting violence. The danger is that only the radical left is being allowed to define what is and what isn’t fascism. ‘The fascism of the future’ could wish for no better ally than ‘anti-fascism.’
 |
| The leader of UAF, Weyman Bennet, arrested for 'conspiracy to organise violent disorder.' |
This is not to say that the UAF are fascists themselves. There are undoubtedly many people within UAF who do have their heart in the right place, and genuinely believe they are doing something good. However, the group risks turning an honourable campaign that aims to alert Britain to the changing political landscape of our country, into a political tool that obfuscates the real source of discontent and a foundation for those who seek to undermine freedom of speech and expression. They cite ‘racism’ and ‘islamophobia’ as being the cause for the rise in the BNP and the EDL, but fail to consider what might be the cause for the increase in racism in the first place. They say that they oppose fascism, but they fail to recognise that fascism comes in many forms, and not just in the guise of skinhead Nazis.
Of course it is also true that the EDL is not just an anti-fascism movement; they oppose the religion of Islam as a whole. The EDL began by opposing ‘extreme’ Islam, but have since grown to become a wider movement in opposition to the general ‘Islamisation’ of Europe. They have effectively decided for themselves that the growth of Muslim populations is directly linked to the growth of extremism. This could be true, and seems a logical deduction to make, but we do not know this for sure. In fact, another person in the debate - Mohammed Ansar, at 05min44sec, says that “there has been no proper debate [in the UK] about the nature of Islam.” This line is the crux of the matter.
We urgently need to have this debate.
What is Islam? Is it merely a religion? Or is it a political ideology? Many Muslims, and perhaps a majority of British Muslims, would say that they support democracy and that Islam is just their religion, whereas others would say that Islam is a political system of governance in itself.
If we look at some other Islamic countries around the world, Sharia is enforced, to varying degrees, as being the law of the land. Some Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, do not have full freedom of religion, in that the minorities of non-Muslims do not enjoy the same political rights as Muslims. Even more extreme, is Saudi Arabia, in which non-Islamic worship is prohibited, and conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by death.
This intolerance of other religions, intrinsic to some interpretations of Islam, combined with large scale immigration into the UK is creating a feeling of fear – a belief that more Muslim immigration equals less freedom. If Islam in the UK is to be simply another religion, then we, especially those of us who are Muslim, need to be more active in condemning the intolerant and political aspects of it. If the conclusion of the debate is that Islam is a political ideology and beyond evolution into something compatible with democracy, then we urgently need to think about what our country will be like in the foreseeable future.
Yes, we are too complacent about the far right. If we do not talk about the nature of Islam in the UK sooner rather than later, then we risk letting street protests escalate into something unthinkable.
Christians and Muslims have been warring for millennia. Recent conflicts include the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, the Lebanese Civil War, the Bosnian massacre and the second Sudanese Civil War.
This intolerance of other religions, intrinsic to some interpretations of Islam, combined with large scale immigration into the UK is creating a feeling of fear – a belief that more Muslim immigration equals less freedom. If Islam in the UK is to be simply another religion, then we, especially those of us who are Muslim, need to be more active in condemning the intolerant and political aspects of it. If the conclusion of the debate is that Islam is a political ideology and beyond evolution into something compatible with democracy, then we urgently need to think about what our country will be like in the foreseeable future.
Yes, we are too complacent about the far right. If we do not talk about the nature of Islam in the UK sooner rather than later, then we risk letting street protests escalate into something unthinkable.
Christians and Muslims have been warring for millennia. Recent conflicts include the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, the Lebanese Civil War, the Bosnian massacre and the second Sudanese Civil War.
If there is one thing that we should learn from history, it is that the price of not talking about these sensitive subjects can be very high indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment