Question Author
When there is a very real risk of rioting, widespread criminal damage and other lawlessness, the government has make clear that it will spend a vast amount of public money on the necessary police presence, but place no restrictions on the event. There is far less of a risk of there being any disorder at the EDL demonstration on 3rd September, and yet we learn that restrictions will still be imposed. We will be allowed our demonstration, but there will be no march. Why the double-standard?
It is true to say that, although most EDL marches have been entirely peaceful, there have been problems in the past. But that was before we recruited a dedicated stewarding team, and before the police began to realise that the majority of trouble at demonstrations originates with the UAF. This is an organisation that follows us up and down the country inciting loosely organised Muslim gangs, such as the so-called Muslim Defence League, to violence. We’ve grown used to there being a very clear pattern: no UAF, no trouble.
Nowadays, the anti-extremism aims of our organisation are clear, and there is no reason to think that an EDL demonstration would contain any dangerous elements or that our presence would provoke more than the usual shrill, misinformed condemnation that we are used to from members of the far-Left.
But there’s another reason why banning our march sends out the wrong message. It suggests that it is the EDL, and not the extremism that we demonstrate about, which needs to be kept in check. The Home Secretary is inadvertently aiding radical Muslims, the far Left, and any other groups who wish for our criticism of radical Islam to be delegitimised. She is inadvertently telling the people of Britain that their concerns about the spread of radical Islam do not need to be treated with the respect they deserve, and that criticism of radical Islam can and should be censored. If nothing else, that sounds exactly like the arguments used by radical Muslims themselves.
Banning the EDL march will only serve to enhance radical Islam’s propaganda. If the government demonises and persecutes critics of radical Islam, then the radicals will be encouraged. They will see this as a strong sign that Britain is a country where their hateful ideology can grow, whilst at the same time actually being protected by the state.
We would have hoped that Theresa May would have realised this by now.
If this was the first time that she had banned one our marches, and if it were out of genuine concern for the safety of shop owners or local residents, then her decision could be understood, or even applauded. But, of course, it’s not. Our recent march in Telford, for example, was banned for no reason other than that the government was being petitioned by Muslim advocacy organisations. Why do they want to suppress criticism of radical Islam? Why do they want to target an organisation that, unlike some others, does make great efforts to distinguish between ideology and individuals, and between radical Muslims and ordinary, decent Muslims? Why do they want to misrepresent our aims and call us ‘Islamophobes’?
We believe that the decision to petition for a ban says more about our critics than it does the EDL.
Not surprisingly, the demonstration in Telford passed entirely peacefully. This is typical. When we have marched there is very rarely any violence, very few arrests (only a few for minor public order offences), and no criminal damage. Much of the time we are in fact the victims. If it’s not threats, incitement and purposeful misrepresentation by the UAF, it’s our leader receiving death threats from Muslim gangs (which, at our Luton demonstration, the police took seriously enough to issue Osman warnings).
Cont.