EDL watch

[frogwoman]

Well I've definitely seen Islamist insignia/flags on Palestine demos including the big one in 2009. It would make me really fucking uncomfortable if I was on a march and saw that sort of thing now.

 

[belboid]

OK, but surely there are three important differences between them and the jihadists.
1) The jihadists are the extremist, militant end of a Faith that is 1400 years old and has a billion adherents worldwide, rather than a handful of tinfoilhatters on the interweb
2) as such, they have been far more strident and successful in both attracting support, and carrying out operations
3) Whilst w/c people in muslim communities can be, and are, a necessary part of class struggle, Islam can only ever be the ideological enemy of that strugglke, like all faiths;
In short, it, and it's militant wing is a far bigger threat to that struggle

surely the same argument holds about all religions tho, so we should spend even more time attacking the mainstream church, as it can only ever be the ideological enemy of the struggle, like all faiths? That just seems too abstract to me, not based in the day to day reality of british life, a reality where such fundamentalism will only ever be a miniscule minority.

 

[belboid]

Exactly. But apparently their miniscule threat should be opposed but the miniscule threat of Islamists not to be worried about according to belboid and was my point that you missed.

sorry, you obviously missed my reply about how the EDL are clearly cutting with mainstream racism, as promoted by the Mail & UKIP etc. Even without that support, and even if both groups were just the same tiny minority within their 'own' communities, the EDL would be much bigger, and so much more of a threat, for fairly obvious reasons.

 

[Limerick Red]

surely the same argument holds about all religions tho, so we should spend even more time attacking the mainstream church, as it can only ever be the ideological enemy of the struggle, like all faiths? That just seems too abstract to me, not based in the day to day reality of british life, a reality where such fundamentalism will only ever be a miniscule minority.

This is like saying there is no diffence between Church of England protesters and Falangists.There is a collosal difference between having people from even conservative mosques, and Jihadists on a protest.

 

[andysays]

you're like a fish, wriggling away on a hook.

belboid, earlier

ETA: link not working. Shame, it was a lovely song

Spoiler

Hopefully it's working now.

DEFINITELY NOT SAFE FOR WORK ETC

 

[andysays]

I think it is clearly the former. They are all perfectly welcome at UAF functions because the SWP thinks that gay rights are '' a shibboleth'' and are prepared to ignore any actions by Islamists due to their absurd second campism.

Yeah, as long as they keep to the back of the bus march with their flags with funny writing that no one can understand, what's the problem?

 

[Streathamite]

Exactly. But apparently their miniscule threat should be opposed but the miniscule threat of Islamists not to be worried about according to belboid and was my point that you missed.

sorry yes, see what you mean now

 

[Streathamite]

surely the same argument holds about all religions tho, so we should spend even more time attacking the mainstream church, as it can only ever be the ideological enemy of the struggle, like all faiths? That just seems too abstract to me, not based in the day to day reality of british life, a reality where such fundamentalism will only ever be a miniscule minority.

It does hold for all Faiths, but given the title of this thread, and what the EDL are explicit in saying they are about, the priority is for the anti-fascist cause to go to extra lengths - extraordinary lengths even - to make it clear they regard both jihadism and islamism as utterly wrong, so as to avoid being tarred with the brush of being 'soft' on them.
Also, I don't know of many terror attacks being carried out by militant christian theocrats

 

[belboid]

It's not just about this demo though is it? This isn't the first time events have occurred that give the impression that the UAF, and by association the left/antifascists in general, are soft on islamists. This is a part of that - probably not of huge significance if taken in isolation, but taken in the context of other stuff like this that's happened before it is important.

To be honest I'm not really clear as to what you're saying here. There is a widely held impression, among more than just EDL and sympathisers, that UAF and by association all antifascists are soft on Islamists. Them being allowed to carry their flags and stuff at demos only reinforces that. I doubt this one instance, taken alone, is of huge significance - but it's more evidence for those who hold this view.

Its not just about this demo, but I really doubt that there is a widely held impression that the UAF is soft on Islamists. Outside of the far-right, who'll say that whatever, and those of us with too much time on our hands on the left, I haven't heard it come up, never from an 'ordinary person.' Which is why I think this whole discussion is completely overblown. Someone holds up a (still not entirely confirmed as) jihadi flag, therefore we need to change how we organise demos? I dont think so.

The wider impression of antifascists as soft on Islamists definitely is damaging - there's simply no question in my mind about that. This feeds into it and the lack of any kind of response from UAF, and in some cases outright denials and incoherent arguments about it not really being an islamist flag just adds to it. It's not just about this one instance, it's about a more long term and more damaging trend.

Do you agree?

as I say, I dont entirely agree re UAF, although as a wider phenomenon we do of course have to oppose islamism. Things like (for example) the SWP's position of not criticising Iran because the yanks and Israelis want to destroy it is counter-productive. You certainly dont invite jihadists to anything, and speak out against them.

If so the discussion should be about how we go about changing that impression. And a part of doing that is to work out how we deal with it when (and it is when - it will happen again) they do this kind of stuff again. It probably won't always be possible to physically repel them. But we need to have an honest discussion about the damage this causes and how it can be countered. It would probably be a good start for the organisers of the demos where it happens to come out afterwards and say it's not tolerable and that we're opposed to that kind of far right politics too.

Dismissing these concerns as moralism misses the point if you ask me.

I'm not dismissing 'concerns' as moralism, I do dismiss some of the idealist (from a marxist perspective, ie not materialist) criticisms. Treating ideas as abstract things without relation to their basis in current reality is idealist, and, it follows, that your belief in such a view flows from a moralist rather than materialist analysis. I am getting rather abstract myself there, I must admit. Too much time in Marxist reading groups...

 

[belboid]

This is like saying there is no diffence between Church of England protesters and Falangists.There is a collosal difference between having people from even conservative mosques, and Jihadists on a protest.

mm, thats why I am disagreeing with the point being made.

 

[belboid]

Spoiler

Hopefully it's working now.

DEFINITELY NOT SAFE FOR WORK ETC

good song, crap point

 

[pissflaps]

that 'song' gave me cancer.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Its not just about this demo, but I really doubt that there is a widely held impression that the UAF is soft on Islamists. Outside of the far-right, who'll say that whatever, and those of us with too much time on our hands on the left, I haven't heard it come up, never from an 'ordinary person.' Which is why I think this whole discussion is completely overblown. Someone holds up a (still not entirely confirmed as) jihadi flag, therefore we need to change how we organise demos? I dont think so.

I have - from liberals, apolitical types and secularists from Muslim backgrounds. This just looks like burying your head in the sand.

Just a statement condemning this kind of stuff would be a start - hardly a massive change in how we organise.

as I say, I dont entirely agree re UAF, although as a wider phenomenon we do of course have to oppose islamism. Things like (for example) the SWP's position of not criticising Iran because the yanks and Israelis want to destroy it is counter-productive. You certainly dont invite jihadists to anything, and speak out against them.

Agreed - but you'll struggle to find much condemnation of it on the UAF website and I've never seen them say anything condemning Islamists turning up to their demos or saying they're not welcome - even after the fact.

I'm not dismissing 'concerns' as moralism, I do dismiss some of the idealist (from a marxist perspective, ie not materialist) criticisms. Treating ideas as abstract things without relation to their basis in current reality is idealist, and, it follows, that your belief in such a view flows from a moralist rather than materialist analysis. I am getting rather abstract myself there, I must admit. Too much time in Marxist reading groups...

I really don't see any of that on here though. I think Islamists make working class self-organisation that includes Muslims and non-Muslims more difficult and the impression (sometimes not without foundation - see them opposing One Law for All as 'fascists' and other such daftness) that UAF and by association antifascists are soft on them only adds to the problem.

 

[belboid]

It does hold for all Faiths, but given the title of this thread, and what the EDL are explicit in saying they are about, the priority is for the anti-fascist cause to go to extra lengths - extraordinary lengths even - to make it clear they regard both jihadism and islamism as utterly wrong, so as to avoid being tarred with the brush of being 'soft' on them.
Also, I don't know of many terror attacks being carried out by militant christian theocrats

Lords Resistance Army?

I think the key thing to do is to argue for unity of working-class people of any religion and none against enemies that try to divide us. That is a fundamentally anti-islamist and jihadist point of view, its one that totally undermines the jihadist argument that all non-muslims are the devil. Is it worth saying out loud that this means being anti-jihadi? Yes. I'm not at all convinced by the need to go to any extra lengths tho.

 

[Limerick Red]

mm, thats why I am disagreeing with the point being made.

sorry somehow missed the post you were quoting!

 

[andysays]

I agree, opposing the EDL is the central priority (of an anti-EDL demo). Thus strong denunciations of the extremists actions should be made (and, in this case, were). Mid to long-term, such work must indeed be done. But, on one particular day, if they do still turn up, what then?

Even opposing the EDL is not an ultimate goal (though it's certainly a worthwhile one). What your longer term strategic purpose is will affect how you oppose them.

It appears that the UAF's purpose is merely to pull more people who don't like the EDL, for whatever reason including moralistic ones, into their orbit, and attempt to recruit them to the Party (good luck with that!)

Any coherent w/c political group has to be able to resist/counter all forms of oppression, not just the current manifestation of racist/facist ideology, which means rejecting the nonsense

my enemy's enemy is my friend​

bollocks, and making a principled judgement on who they work with. The UAF seem to have no principles beyond being a front for the SWP and attempting to recruit more acolytes

 

[andysays]

that 'song' gave me cancer.

Spoiler

Not Safe For pissflaps

 

[pissflaps]

now that just looked like a first year film school student's end of year project. C-

 

[treelover]

The big palestine march in London which is held very year and promoted by the likes of Socialist Unity has loads of dubious characters, groups on it, can't think of the name of it.

and there was the 'jewish octopus' thing as well..

 

[belboid]

I have - from liberals, apolitical types and secularists from Muslim backgrounds. This just looks like burying your head in the sand.

Just a statement condemning this kind of stuff would be a start - hardly a massive change in how we organise.

I've heard many, many, criticisms of the UAF from all sorts of people, from 'they just get us to stand around uselessly' to 'they wrong cos its free speech' and everything inbetween, including plenty of slagging off of 'islamists'. I've honestly never heard anyone (other than the AWL) say simply that the UAF are soft on jihadists. Sorry, but I havent.

Agreed - but you'll struggle to find much condemnation of it on the UAF website and I've never seen them say anything condemning Islamists turning up to their demos or saying they're not welcome - even after the fact.

I wouldnt expect them to. Not unless it became a much bigger story than it currently is - ie a bit of chatter on some websites. If it isnt being brought up with them, then they aren't going to see a need for any response, are they? Doing so would add to the idea that british jihadism is a bigger problem than it really is.

I really don't see any of that on here though. I think Islamists make working class self-organisation that includes Muslims and non-Muslims more difficult and the impression (sometimes not without foundation - see them opposing One Law for All as 'fascists' and other such daftness) that UAF and by association antifascists are soft on them only adds to the problem.[/quote]
hadn't seen the One Law stuff before - fuck me but that seems like a stupid response from them. And, yes, islamists make w-c organisation harder, but not much in the vast majority of places. EDL type racists are far far more common and thus require far far more attention.

 

[Streathamite]

Lords Resistance Army?

Arghh my bad, should have added 'in Britain'. This being where we operate

I think the key thing to do is to argue for unity of working-class people of any religion and none against enemies that try to divide us. That is a fundamentally anti-islamist and jihadist point of view, its one that totally undermines the jihadist argument that all non-muslims are the devil. Is it worth saying out loud that this means being anti-jihadi? Yes.

Agreed, but we should also go to extra lenghts to put up the big 'not welcome' sign, should any organisation like Hizb-Ut Tahrir (or similar) try to hijack protests

I'm not at all convinced by the need to go to any extra lengths tho.

I think we do. Firstly, due to the cynical fellow-travelling behaviour of ye swappies/UAF in the past, EDL have beeen handed a potentially priceless propaganda tool, which it is vital to counter. Second, the tenacity of the jihadi types measns, again, the big 'not welcome' sign is extra-necessary. Thirdly, the trot left has, regfrettably, such a sad record of propaganda own goals, that it's wise to me to be cautious.

 

[belboid]

Even opposing the EDL is not an ultimate goal (though it's certainly a worthwhile one). What your longer term strategic purpose is will affect how you oppose them.

It appears that the UAF's purpose is merely to pull more people who don't like the EDL, for whatever reason including moralistic ones, into their orbit, and attempt to recruit them to the Party (good luck with that!)

Any coherent w/c political group has to be able to resist/counter all forms of oppression, not just the current manifestation of racist/facist ideology, which means rejecting the nonsense

my enemy's enemy is my friend​

bollocks, and making a principled judgement on who they work with. The UAF seem to have no principles beyond being a front for the SWP and attempting to recruit more acolytes

well, I'm interested in helping build working-class self-organisation. Which means there were about four hundred tools of oppression I should have been opposing last saturday. Sometimes you have to concentrate on specific targets.

 

[sunnysidedown]

And, yes, islamists make w-c organisation harder, but not much in the vast majority of places. EDL type racists are far far more common and thus require far far more attention.

and what is this far, far more attention exactly? shouting scum! all day long and offering nothing political apart from a wet-arsed defence of islamist flag wavers?

 

[Streathamite]

I've honestly never heard anyone (other than the AWL) say simply that the UAF are soft on jihadists. Sorry, but I havent.

Haven't you? I must say I have, from both non-swappie trots and anarchoes, plus others I got chatting to at demoes

And, yes, islamists make w-c organisation harder, but not much in the vast majority of places. EDL type racists are far far more common and thus require far far more attention.

hmm....given that the EDL were, until Woolwich, dying on their arse, and given that quite a few studies have charted the rise of Islamism (if not, I grant you, outright jihadism), I'm not so sure that's actually the case.

 

[Delroy Booth]

What an unbelievable cretin you are belboid.

 

[belboid]

Arghh my bad, should have added 'in Britain'. This being where we operate

Agreed, but we should also go to extra lenghts to put up the big 'not welcome' sign, should any organisation like Hizb-Ut Tahrir (or similar) try to hijack protests

I think we do. Firstly, due to the cynical fellow-travelling behaviour of ye swappies/UAF in the past, EDL have beeen handed a potentially priceless propaganda tool, which it is vital to counter. Second, the tenacity of the jihadi types measns, again, the big 'not welcome' sign is extra-necessary. Thirdly, the trot left has, regfrettably, such a sad record of propaganda own goals, that it's wise to me to be cautious.

I wonder what effect such signs would have upon muslims who didnt buy into the whole use of language around 'islamist,' 'jihadi,' etc. People who were defensive of their religion, and didn't particularly know the organisers of the demo. They are amongst the very people we are trying to pull to such events, but putting signs like that up will surely put them off, no?

Especailly when you get the pedantic muslim who goes 'well, technically I am a jihadist, because I know what the word means and it isn't all about the violent struggle against non-believers at all.'

 

[belboid]

Haven't you? I must say I have, from both non-swappie trots and anarchoes, plus others I got chatting to at demoes

sorry, I had mentioned other lefties with too much time on their hands before as well. I just like slagging off the AWL.

hmm....given that the EDL were, until Woolwich, dying on their arse, and given that quite a few studies have charted the rise of Islamism (if not, I grant you, outright jihadism), I'm not so sure that's actually the case.

yeah, but their base had never disappeared, they'd just got sick of standing around in pens chanting and being chanted at.

 

[belboid]

What an unbelievable cretin you are belboid.

thank you for that insightful and thought provoking comment.

 

[Streathamite]

This isn't the first time events have occurred that give the impression that the UAF, and by association the left/antifascists in general, are soft on islamists.

sorry to veer OT slightly, but it's really important to differentiate between Islamists and Jihadists. The former is massvely broad concept encompassing all shades of opinion between (say) Ahmed Ben Bella to the MB, the latter hacked a soldier to death in Woolwich and put bombs on tube trains

 

[SpineyNorman]

sorry to veer OT slightly, but it's really important to differentiate between Islamists and Jihadists. The former is massvely broad concept encompassing all shades of opinion between (say) Ahmed Ben Bella to the MB, the latter hacked a soldier to death in Woolwich and put bombs on tube trains

True - though I can't say I'm any more comfortable with Islamists (as opposed to Muslims) than I would be with Christian reconstructionists.